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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. FRE 0065599
Regular
Mar 04, 2008

JOHN ALLEN vs. KENT MAGNELL CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied John Allen's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision to terminate his vocational rehabilitation services due to a consistent failure to cooperate. The Board found that Allen's persistent insistence on a specific, unachievable vocational goal, coupled with his refusal to undergo necessary medical evaluations and provide requested records, led to the impasse. Consequently, his request for retroactive benefits and vocational rehabilitation was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational RehabilitationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderRehabilitation UnitSuitable Gainful EmploymentVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceAverage Weekly EarningsTemporary Disability IndemnityCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ6413644
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JANICE HOWELL vs. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, dba COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition also sought removal, which was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issues, such as an order compelling medical record production, are interlocutory procedural matters not subject to reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, denying both reconsideration and removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationStipulationsOrder Compelling Production of RecordsDiscovery ProcessPrivacy
References
11
Case No. ADJ11184599, ADJ11184523
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

Gregory White vs. Sky 2 Collision Corporation, Illinois Midwest Insurance Company, Inc., National Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gregory White's petition for reconsideration of a $47\%$ permanent disability award. White argued he was permanently totally disabled due to vocational limitations, but the Board found substantial evidence supported his ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's finding that White was not permanently totally disabled and that his vocational expert's report was less persuasive than the defense vocational expert's. Issues regarding vocational costs were deferred pending a separate petition.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryLow back injuryLumbar spineBacterial infectionStreptoccocusLaminectomyPermanent disabilityVocational rehabilitationQualified injured worker
References
4
Case No. RDG 0095368; RDG 0095369; RDG 0095573; RDG 0126270
Regular
Sep 25, 2007

HENRY PHILLIPE vs. GOTTSCHALKS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow reimbursement for the applicant's vocational expert fees, reversing the WCJ's decision. The Board found it reasonable for the applicant to hire his own vocational expert to rebut the defendant's expert, especially given the passage of time since the original vocational feasibility report. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant's attorney for the $1,075.00 vocational expert cost.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationExpert Witness FeesVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (QRR)LeBoeuf argumentAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Permanent DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ8772254
Regular
Jul 20, 2017

Lorenzo Hernandez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lorenzo Hernandez's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award of 24% permanent disability for a right shoulder injury. The applicant argued that a vocational expert's report should have rebutted the scheduled disability rating, but the Board found this report insufficient. Relying on *Ogilvie* and *Dahl*, the Board determined that an applicant's amenability to vocational rehabilitation precludes using vocational expert testimony to challenge a scheduled rating based on lost earning capacity. Therefore, the vocational expert's opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to overcome the QME's scheduled rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertQualified Medical EvaluatorScheduled RatingReconsiderationLabor Code §4660.1AMA Guides 5th EditionAmenability to Vocational RehabilitationDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
3
Case No. ADJ8838103
Regular
Dec 11, 2020

STEVE BOSROCK vs. BEN R. WADSWORTH, INC., DBA VALLEY GLASS COMPANY, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award. The Board found the medical evaluator, Dr. Rosenberg, should have the opportunity to review subsequent vocational evidence. This vocational evidence impacted the determination of the applicant's ability to return to the open labor market and benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The case is returned to the trial level for further medical record development and a new final decision.

Permanent DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertMedical ApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)AMA GuidesWhole Person Impairment (WPI)Functional Capacity EvaluationVocational RehabilitationCompensable Consequence Injuries
References
3
Case No. ADJ10817362; ADJ10814219; ADJ10815251
Regular
Apr 14, 2023

SHANE PERRY vs. MASTEC, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, ADMINISTERED BY ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original decision finding the applicant permanently and totally disabled, with one amendment. The Board agreed to exclude the applicant's vocational rebuttal expert's report, as recommended by the Workers' Compensation Judge. However, the Board rejected the defendant's arguments regarding a subsequent injury, the vocational expert's legal standard, and the exclusion of defense vocational expert evidence.

Permanent and Total DisabilityVocational ExpertPetition for ReconsiderationMedical EvidenceLegal StandardAdmissibility of EvidenceCompensable Consequence InjuryLabor Market AccessDiminished Future Earning CapacityQME Reporting
References
14
Case No. ADJ2860436
Regular
Dec 02, 2011

HAROLD DAVID WATSON vs. VANCE INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL FIRE CO. OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a prior decision finding the employer's appeal of a vocational rehabilitation benefits determination was timely filed. The Appeals Board upheld its prior finding, determining that the employer filed its appeal on December 11, 2008, which was before the January 1, 2009 repeal of the vocational rehabilitation statute. Because the appeal was timely and the right to benefits was not vested prior to the repeal, the applicant is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational rehabilitation benefitsLabor Code section 139.5Appeal PetitionDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPersonal serviceService by mailDocument Cover SheetWCAB District OfficeProof of service
References
50
Case No. ADJ2862114
Regular
Oct 30, 2008

PATRICIA TRUJILLO vs. EARTHLINK, INC., CHUBB INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that the defendant, Earthlink, Inc., owes vocational rehabilitation benefits to the applicant, Patricia Trujillo. The court found that the defendant failed to provide legally required notices when the applicant deferred vocational rehabilitation services. This failure meant the deferral was invalid, making the defendant liable for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) from the date of the notice breach.

Vocational rehabilitationAD Rule 9813(a)(4)VRMAdeferral of servicesnotice requirementsclaims administratorinterrupted servicesreinstatement of servicesstatute of limitationsemployer's duty
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 639 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