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. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
Case No. ADJ1372133 (VNO 0488219)
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

CHARLES ROMANO vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves applicant Charles Romano's reconsideration of a Supplemental Findings and Award regarding medical treatment penalties against Ralphs Grocery Company. The applicant sought penalties for delays in providing a wheelchair and reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses, including a van. However, the WCJ rescinded the Supplemental Award and scheduled further proceedings, rendering the petitions for reconsideration moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and AwardMedical Treatment PenaltiesL.C. §§ 58145814.5wheelchairout-of-pocket medical expenseswheelchair accessible vanOrder Rescinding Supplemental Findings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ1 0544723
Regular
Feb 21, 2017

CARLOS BARRAZA AYON vs. GILL RANCH COMPANY, INC.; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Notice of Benefit Ineligibility regarding a Return to Work Supplement, which was denied due to untimely application. The applicant argued inadequate notice of their right to a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature, finding the Director's decision was not yet subject to review at the trial level. The matter was returned to the trial level to first determine the applicant's entitlement to an SJDV, as their underlying case settlement did not address this issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReturn to Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherNotice of Benefit IneligibilityPetition for ReconsiderationPrematureTrial LevelAdjudicate EntitlementCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5900(a)
References
Case No. ADJ11298015
Regular
May 27, 2025

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that she was precluded from a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit, despite receiving a second Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The applicant contended that her second voucher was 'subsequent' to her first RTWSP payment, fulfilling an exception in Rule 17302(b). The Appeals Board clarified that the exception refers to the date of injury being subsequent, not the voucher issuance date. As the record lacked a finding on the cumulative trauma date of injury, the Board rescinded the previous order and returned the case to the trial level for this determination.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB vouchercumulative trauma injuryspecific injurydate of injuryLabor Code section 139.48Rule 17302Rule 17309Administrative Procedures Act
References
Case No. MON 254928
Significant
Feb 25, 2002

James McDuffie, Applicant vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Permissibly Self-Insured, c/o Constitution State Service Company

The Board holds that where the medical record requires further development after trial, the preferred procedure is to first seek supplemental opinions from the physicians who have already reported in the case before considering the appointment of a new medical examiner.

En Banc DecisionMedical Record DevelopmentSupplemental OpinionsAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Court Appointed Medical EvaluatorFurther DevelopmentApportionmentPermanent DisabilityBus Operator
References
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ11110973
Regular
May 23, 2025

Jorge Aragon vs. El Super, Safety National Casualty Corporation, Tristar Risk Management

The applicant, Jorge Aragon, sought reconsideration of a decision denying him a second payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP). The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found him ineligible based on Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second RTWSP payment if the subsequent injury occurs before receiving the previous supplement. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant's remedy to challenge the validity of Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board, as the rule is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The Board also clarified its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite RTWSP's contention.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48invalid regulationarbitrary and capriciousArticle XIV section 4Administrative Procedures Act
References
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182)
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding Milton Guzman sustained an industrial psychological injury. The defendant, Zurich North America, argued the applicant did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board will allow supplemental briefing on whether the applicant met the six-month employment duration requirement for psychiatric claims, as this issue was not fully decided by the WCJ. The decision will address this specific issue before issuing a final ruling.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix month employment requirementindustrial injuryFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationsupplemental briefingWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Showing 1-10 of 870 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