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. ADJ10813026
Regular
May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48
References
8
Case No. ADJ6884562
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ERIC KRUSE vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns whether a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity applies when an employer offers an injured employee regular work after their condition is permanent and stationary. The applicant, a parking enforcement officer, sustained a neck and elbow injury and was temporarily disabled before returning to his regular job. The employer offered regular work after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, but the applicant had already returned to his normal duties. The majority found that since there was no indication of permanent disability prior to the employer's offer, all permanent indemnity was payable after the offer, entitling the employer to the reduction. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the offer lacked practical meaning as the applicant had already returned to work and that no weekly payments remained after the offer to be reduced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric KruseCity of San Rafaelparking enforcement officerindustrial injuryneck injuryright elbow injurytemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryoffer of regular work
References
0
Case No. ADJ8981638
Regular
Jan 19, 2019

ANTHONY INGRASSI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries to his left shoulder, lumbar spine, right hip, and left elbow. The defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award, arguing the $36\%$ permanent disability award should only be paid over 173 weeks and that the Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) increase was unwarranted. The Appeals Board amended the award to reflect 173 weeks for the permanent disability and affirmed the $4658(d)(2)$ increase, finding the defendant failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for return-to-work offers after the applicant's medical condition became permanent and stationary, despite the applicant's brief return to work. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the $4658(d)(2)$ increase should not apply as the defendant's failure to issue a second notice was form over substance given the applicant was already working full duty.

Labor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Permanent Disability AwardApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent Impairment RatingsNotice of Offer of Regular WorkDWC-AD 10118Substantial ComplianceReturn to Work Incentives
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. ADJ2120386 (RIV 0052440)
Regular
Aug 18, 2014

JEFF TURLEY vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming that the applicant is entitled to permanent temporary disability benefits retroactive to October 19, 2006. The Board found that the employer failed to demonstrate the applicant returned to work or was offered a suitable position after his section 4850 benefits ceased. The applicant's recurrence of cancer, surgery, and subsequent industrial disability retirement supported his inability to return to work. Consequently, the applicant is also entitled to a ten percent penalty for the unpaid retroactive benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4650(b)(2)Labor Code section 4850permanent disabilitytemporary disabilityPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdocumentary evidenceapplicant returned to worksection 4850 benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ460346 (STK 0189196) ADJ3032103 (STK 0191252)
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

THERESA MICHELLE DELGADO vs. MERCED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case involves Applicant Theresa Delgado's petition for reconsideration of the Appeals Board's decision to allow further development of the record. The Board had previously rescinded a prior award, deeming the existing psychiatric QME reports stale due to the passage of time and Applicant's return to work. Applicant argued this violated procedural rules regarding exhibit readiness at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. The Board denied the petition, reiterating that its March 23, 2009 decision was an interim procedural order and that updated medical reports are necessary for a determination of current disability, as stale medical evidence does not constitute substantial evidence.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentMandatory Settlement ConferenceQualified Medical Examiner
References
7
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
1
Case No. ADJ7921039
Regular
Feb 20, 2014

ANA GAMEZ vs. CIRCA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior Findings and Award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that while the applicant experienced pain and received medical treatment, there was insufficient evidence to establish a date of injury based on permanent disability. The matter is remanded to develop the record further, specifically to determine if the applicant suffered permanent disability at the time she received medical treatment and was placed on modified work. The WCJ should seek clarification from the treating physician on this issue and whether the applicant could have returned to unrestricted work.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryUpper ExtremitiesDate of InjuryCumulative TraumaCarpal Tunnel SyndromeModified DutyTemporary Disability
References
9
Case No. ADJ2346178 (VNO 0504730) MF ADJ862555 (VNO 0504735)
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

REBECCA DUARTE vs. MOTION PICTURE \& TV FUND, Permissibly Self-Insured, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns an applicant's 1990 specific industrial injury that caused temporary total disability from August 2004 to September 2010. The defendant argued that the injury could not have caused this later period of disability as the applicant had returned to work and her condition was previously deemed permanent and stationary. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, finding that the 1990 injury did contribute to the temporary disability period. The Board relied on medical opinions stating the specific injury and a later cumulative trauma both contributed to the applicant's condition. The court clarified legal precedent, holding that prior return to work or permanent and stationary declarations do not preclude liability for subsequent temporary disability if the original injury is a contributing factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMotion Picture & TV FundZurich North AmericaSpecific Industrial InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical ExaminerCumulative TraumaTemporary Disability IndemnityApportionment
References
3
Case No. ADJ8442625
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

PATRICIA TILLMAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION PAROLE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an award of increased permanent disability benefits for applicant Patricia Tillman. The Board found that while the employer did not offer modified work within 60 days of the P&S date, the applicant had returned to her regular duties, and the employer had complied with the statute's intent. The Board also amended the applicant's permanent and stationary date to March 17, 2014, based on a psychological AME's report. Finally, the Board noted that the applicant was not entitled to a discount on benefits as she had not been offered modified work and had lost time from work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Permanent and Stationary DateAgreed Medical ExaminerMedical Improvement (MMI)ApportionmentParole AgentIndustrial Injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 20,068 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