CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ1629575 (MON 0296496)
Regular
Oct 06, 2008

SCOTT BICKLEY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's decision, finding applicant was not entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the delay rate. The Board reasoned that no delay in VRMA provision occurred as applicant declined services at the initial meeting, negating the applicability of Labor Code section 4642. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to the claimed VRMA payments from February 7, 2006, to September 5, 2007.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMADelay RateLabor Code Section 4642Qualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeQRRVocational Rehabilitation ServicesRetroactive PaymentsSettlement
References
0
Case No. ADJ1908213
Regular
Mar 11, 2009

ROBERT WARD vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PSI AND ADJUSTED BY SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that applicant was entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) but not at the delay rate. The Board found the delay in VRMA reinstatement was caused by the applicant's pursuit of a settlement rather than the employer's actions. The issue of a Labor Code section 5814 penalty was deferred by the WCJ and therefore not addressed in this order.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMA delay rateLabor Code section 5814 penaltyretroactive VRMAPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurypermanent disabilityvocational rehabilitation benefitssettlement negotiationsRehabilitation Unit
References
0
Case No. ADJ353190 (AHM 0123870)
Regular
Aug 16, 2010

RICHARD GARCIA vs. McMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's order awarding the applicant Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA). The Board found that the applicant's VRMA rights vested before the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, thus the Board retained jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendant is liable for VRMA at the applicant's temporary total disability (TTD) rate of $640.00 per week due to their delay in providing rehabilitation services, exceeding the VRMA cap.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Rehabilitation UnitPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryTotal Temporary Disability (TTD) RateHofmeister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Administrative Director's RulesWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyAppeals Board en banc
References
10
Case No. ADJ3327550 (MON 0264965) ADJ3658010 (MON 0264963)
Regular
Jul 21, 2009

JOSEPH MCELVOGUE vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns a dispute over the weekly rate of Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA). The defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that retroactively increased the VRMA rate, arguing it was an untimely judicial change rather than a clerical correction. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and reinstated the earlier, unchallenged VRMA rate. The Board found that the applicant's failure to timely seek reconsideration of the July 28, 2008 order, which set the rate at $840.00, made it final. Any attempt to substantively change that rate thereafter, including the claimed "clerical error" correction, was beyond the WCJ's jurisdiction.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMAReconsiderationFinal OrderClerical ErrorSubstantive ChangeJurisdictionLabor Code Section 5903TimelinessRescinded
References
1
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. SAC 293290
Regular
Feb 21, 2008

WILLIAM MENDOZA vs. LEE CUNEO dba THE BODY SHOP, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's (UEBTF) contentions. While affirming the award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the delay rate, the Board amended the original order to allow the UEBTF credit for wages earned by the applicant as a property manager and for his net recovery in a third-party civil action against the uninsured employer. This credit will reduce the UEBTF's liability for the VRMA.

UEBTFVRMAdelay ratecredit for wagescivil action recoveryLabor Code section 139.5Labor Code section 4909property manager earningsthird party actionnet recovery
References
1
Case No. VNO 0468876
Regular
Jul 19, 2007

PATRICK METOYER vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the lower judge's order that applicant was entitled to vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the "legal rate" without offset for earnings. The Board remanded the case for recalculation of VRMA considering applicant's earnings during the relevant period, noting the "legal rate" was not sufficiently defined and that applicant's employment income necessitated a wage loss calculation. The Board also vacated the penalty and attorney fees awarded due to the dispute over VRMA calculation.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCEVRMALEGAL RATEWAGE LOSSREHABILITATION UNITFINDINGS AND ORDERLABOR CODE SECTION 5814ATTORNEYS' FEES
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. ADJ1516621 (LBO 0352293)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

Jack Schafer vs. BOB FRINK MANAGEMENT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) and penalties for the defendant's unreasonable delay in providing benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings on VRMA and delayed VR benefits. However, the Board deferred the issue of the Labor Code § 5814 penalty, remanding it for a proper explanation and analysis of factors required by precedent. This ensures the WCJ correctly applies the law regarding penalty calculations and amounts.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code § 4650(d)Labor Code § 5814 penaltyReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardStipulated AwardIndustrial InjuryAutomobile MechanicPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ6957361
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

ROBERTO BARAJAS vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by Fresno Unified School District regarding a workers' compensation award for Roberto Barajas. The District challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner improperly included grip strength loss alongside range of motion limitations, contrary to AMA Guides guidelines. Additionally, the District contested a 10% penalty for delayed permanent disability advances and sought a reduction in benefits based on an offer of regular work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings on the permanent disability rating by finding the AME appropriately applied *Almaraz/Guzman II* principles for calculating impairment. The Board also upheld the penalty for delayed advances and rejected the District's claim regarding work offer reductions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFresno Unified School DistrictRoberto BarajasFindings of Fact and Awardpermanent disabilityright wrist injuryright hand injuryright finger injurygroundskeeper/gardenerLabor Code section 4650
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,946 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational