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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ10248888
Regular
Jan 23, 2019

JUAN PAQUINI vs. SPRING HILL JERSEY CHEESE, INC., dba PETALUMA CREAMERY

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that his vehicle accident was not a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition, which would have allowed compensation for psychiatric injury despite less than six months of employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's testimony regarding the alleged steering wheel lock was contradictory and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant failed to prove the incident was uncommon or unexpected beyond personal experience. Consequently, the original order was amended to explicitly state the injury did *not* fall under the sudden and extraordinary exception.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinarypsychiatric injuryless than six months employmentmotor vehicle accidentsteering wheel lockedcredibility determinationpreponderance of the evidencefactual inquiry
References
Case No. ADJ4151507 (SFO 0487197)
Regular
Feb 02, 2020

Tracy Sullivan vs. Café Amsterdam, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the previous award, finding the applicant's burn injury did not qualify for the "severe burns" exception to the temporary disability indemnity limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(D). Consequently, temporary disability indemnity is limited to 104 weeks from the commencement of payments on August 10, 2004. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's psychiatric injury was compensable, meeting the "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition exception. Clerical errors in the original findings were also corrected.

ADJ4151507SFO 0487197Tracy SullivanCafé AmsterdamState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWCJindustrial injurycervical spine
References
Case No. ADJ2582936
Regular
May 20, 2011

MAYRA ENRIQUEZ vs. NOUVEUR DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision to deny compensation for the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. Applicant, employed for less than six months, argued her injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Board found that catching her hand in a machine was a foreseeable, ordinary risk of her job, not an extraordinary event. Therefore, Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by an extraordinary condition, barred recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementsudden and extraordinaryregular and routinemachine operatorindustrial injurypetition for reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ1332729 (RDG 0121425)
Regular
Feb 18, 2011

LINEA HIMES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES-IHSS, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the compensability of the applicant's psychiatric injury. The defendant argued the applicant's psychiatric injury was not compensable due to less than six months of employment, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). While the WCJ found the auto accident was a "sudden and extraordinary event" exempting the six-month rule, the Board remanded the case. The Board requires the WCJ to first determine the applicant's exact length of employment before addressing the "sudden and extraordinary" exception.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentTraumatic Automobile Accident
References
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182), ADJ4664046 (SDO 0348183)
Regular
Nov 27, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychological injury. The defendant argued the applicant did not meet the six-month employment requirement under Labor Code 3208.3 or the "sudden and extraordinary" exception. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche, determining the applicant's intermittent employment, including time after the injury, constituted sufficient "actual service." A dissenting opinion argued the applicant's service was less than six months and the backhoe injury was not "sudden and extraordinary."

Labor Code 3208.3Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurypsychestrokestreet light technicianSelect ElectricZurich North Americaactual service
References
Case No. ADJ7096070
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

HUGO PEREZ vs. CONSTRUCTION ZONE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured in a scaffolding fall who also claims psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the applicant, employed for less than six months, argued his psychiatric injury stemmed from a "sudden and extraordinary" event. The Board found the protective tubing giving way during his fall constituted an extraordinary event, thus excepting it from the six-month employment rule for psychiatric claims. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment rulesudden and extraordinary eventscaffoldingfall from heightprotective tubingcompensabilityreconsiderationrescinded
References
Case No. ADJ7138792
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

HILDA BONILLA vs. CAMEO CLEANERS, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding of industrial psychiatric injury. The WCAB found the applicant's psychiatric injury claim barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) because she was employed for less than six months. The Board determined the incident, where an ironing press lowered on the applicant's hand, was not a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" as required to overcome the six-month rule. This conclusion was based on evidence that burns at a dry cleaner are common and that the machine operated with a single button, increasing the risk of such an injury.

Labor Code 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary eventsix-month employment ruledry cleanerindustrial injuryreconsiderationWCJAppeals Boardoccupational burn
References
Case No. ADJ850378 (OAK 0327145)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

JUAN C. CAMPOS vs. EXPERT TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant injured while working as a tree climber, who sustained multiple physical injuries and sought compensation for a psychological injury. The defendant contested the psychological injury claim, arguing it didn't meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" exception to the six-month employment rule for such claims. The Board granted reconsideration, reversing the finding of a compensable psychological injury because the event, while sudden, was not extraordinary for the nature of the employment. The case is remanded for a new rating of orthopedic permanent disability.

Labor Code section 3208.3sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityAMA Guidessequelaecompensable consequenceindustrial injuryreconsiderationfindings award and order
References
Showing 1-10 of 65 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