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. ADJ1922528 (AHM 0096025) ADJ1909758 (AHM 0129156)
Regular
Mar 23, 2009

Rafael Rivas vs. STEFAN MERLI PLASTERING CO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED GLENDALE

In this case, the applicant sought vocational rehabilitation benefits over five years after his injury, which the judge initially denied based on the statute of limitations. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the denial, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that because there was no prior adjudication of the applicant's right to vocational rehabilitation and he remained temporarily disabled without a permanent disability finding, his request could still be considered under Labor Code Section 5405.5. This decision emphasizes that jurisdiction for vocational rehabilitation can extend beyond five years from the injury date when entitlement hasn't been previously determined.

Vocational rehabilitation benefitsStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 5410Labor Code section 5405.5Date of injuryReinstatementJurisdictionPermanent disabilityTemporary total disabilityAgreed Medical Examiners
References
9
Case No. ADJ8835660
Regular
Jan 19, 2018

JOE CASILLAS vs. GRAYD A PRECISION METAL FABRICATORS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by the defendant regarding a permanent total disability award for Joe Casillas. The defendant argued against the total disability finding, questioned injury to the left upper extremity, and contested the basis for vocational rehabilitation findings. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the findings, rescinding the finding of injury to the left upper extremity due to the applicant unilaterally withdrawing that issue. However, the Board affirmed the permanent total disability finding based on substantial medical and vocational evidence, including the applicant's significant limitations in daily living and unsuitability for vocational rehabilitation, despite the absence of left upper extremity injury.

Permanent total disabilityvocational rehabilitationindustrial injurybilateral upper extremitiescervical spinepsychefabricatorState Compensation Insurance Fundpetition for reconsiderationadministrative law judge
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04542 [162 AD3d 878]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Lorde v. Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Thomas Lorde, a carpenter, was injured after falling from an inverted bucket while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Margaret Tietz Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Lorde filed an action for personal injuries, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and moved for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Lorde appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Lorde failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as his testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding the availability of safety devices and whether his own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injury.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Elevated Work SiteSafety DevicesProximate CauseWorker NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling Accident
References
10
Case No. SAC 0315585
Regular
Sep 18, 2007

Bradley Dorigo vs. State of California, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case concerns the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund's (SIF) liability for an applicant's vocational rehabilitation counselor fees. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award requiring SIF to reimburse a portion of the vocational expert's fees, despite SIF's arguments that it was not liable for such costs. The Board cited prior writ-denied cases and relevant statutes, including Code of Civil Procedure section 1028 and Labor Code section 5708, to support its decision.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundVocational rehabilitation expertLabor Code section 4751Compromise and releaseStipulated awardPermanent disabilityReimbursementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCode of Civil Procedure section 1028
References
3
Case No. SRO 0141948
Regular
Aug 08, 2008

DANIEL J. KOFFLER vs. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, THE TRAVELERS CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a defendant's claim that the judge improperly awarded vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found that Labor Code Section 139.5, the basis for the awarded benefits, does not apply to injuries occurring after January 1, 2004, which was the applicant's injury date. Therefore, the Board amended the Compromise and Release to delete the provision for vocational rehabilitation benefits, as the applicant had also settled any claim to supplemental job displacement benefits.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation BenefitsSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitsLabor Code Section 139.5Labor Code Section 4658.5Industrial InjuryPsyche InjuryMental StressNervous SystemDate of Injury
References
0
Case No. STK 0173461
Regular
Aug 14, 2008

CAMERON LEGGETT vs. PPG AUTO GLASS COMPANY, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial spinal injury on August 22, 2001. While the applicant argued for retroactive Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) from earlier demands, the Board found no industrial injury was admitted until May 19, 2008. Crucially, no medical evidence supported vocational rehabilitation feasibility until a May 2006 report, distinguishing this case from precedent cited by the applicant. Therefore, VRMA was correctly awarded only from the date of medical eligibility.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATIONVRMADELAY RATERETROACTIVE BENEFITSMEDICAL FEASIBILITYQUALIFIED REHABILITATION REPRESENTATIVEQRRDENIED INJURYACCEPTED INJURYQIW
References
3
Case No. SFO 0425862 SFO 0425863
Regular
May 14, 2008

William Bishop vs. IGC POLYCOLD SYSTEMS, ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injury to his right shoulder and seeking a new vocational rehabilitation plan. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of a new vocational plan and the finding of no industrial injury to the right shoulder. However, they reversed the WCJ to award benefits resulting from right shoulder surgery, deeming it a consequence of the compensable left shoulder injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational Rehabilitation PlanIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderLeft ShoulderTemporary DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluationCausationNon-Industrial
References
8
Case No. ADJ8189392
Regular
Jan 19, 2015

KATHRYN JOHNSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of permanent total disability. The defendant argued the vocational rehabilitation expert's report lacked substantial evidence and failed to apportion the injury. The Board found the vocational expert's opinion that the applicant was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and had a complete loss of earning capacity was supported by medical evidence. This analysis was unaffected by the *Dahl* decision, leading to the denial of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardNotice of IntentionVocational Rehabilitation ExpertSubstantial EvidenceApportionmentPermanent Total DisabilityLoss of Earnings CapacityDahl holdingContra Costa County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 13,305 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