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. ADJ7837378; ADJ7837348 ADJ7981021; ADJ8193223
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

JESUS DOMINGUEZ vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order that took the applicant's discrimination claim off calendar. The Board found the WCJ's reasoning for shelving the claim to be unsubstantiated, as the discrimination allegations and evidence required may be distinct from the applicant's primary injury claims. Consequently, the matters are returned to the trial level for a mandatory settlement conference and further proceedings on the discrimination claim. The Board expressed no opinion on the merits of the discrimination petition itself.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 132adiscriminationincreased benefitsoff calendarDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conferencewage discriminationjob assignment discriminationindustrial injuries
References
Case No. ADJ774763
Regular
Dec 28, 2009

JOSEPH CASTANEDA vs. GALASSO'S BAKERY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's decision and finding no discrimination against the applicant under Labor Code section 132a.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationprima facie caseindustrial injurydetrimental conductdisparate treatmentprobationary employeesafety rulesgood faith beliefpretextual discrimination
References
Case No. ADJ4182817
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

DANIEL LEE vs. NCRC, INC.

This case concerns an employee who filed a workers' compensation claim, including a discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a, and later filed for bankruptcy. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous finding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the employee's standing for the 132a claim pending a bankruptcy court ruling. The WCAB asserted its exclusive jurisdiction over 132a claims, stating that the employee's failure to separately list this claim as an exempt asset in bankruptcy does not divest the WCAB of jurisdiction. The case is remanded for a decision on the merits of the 132a claim.

Labor Code section 132abankruptcy estatestandingjurisdictiondiscriminationreinstatementlost wageswork benefitsindustrial injurytemporary total disability
References
Case No. ADJ10817975
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

ALISON MARQUEZ vs. EL PESCADOR, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED

This case involved a worker claiming unlawful discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued that the defendant's witness testimony lacked credibility and was presented without an interpreter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the initial decision finding no discrimination. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, concluding the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination because the evidence did not support claims of witness incredibility or lack of interpreter causing confusion.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJPrima Facie CaseLegal RightDetriment
References
Case No. ADJ7811358
Regular
Jan 22, 2016

PABLO ORTEGA vs. PRAVIN PATEL, TJ, LLC dba SANTA CRUZ BEACH INN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award for unlawful discrimination. The employer argued the applicant was laid off due to business slowdown and failed to mitigate wages, but the Board upheld the finding of pretext and discrimination. The Board also confirmed that medical-legal expenses are considered employee compensation and are subject to the one-half increase for discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Therefore, the employer is liable for the increased compensation including the PQME's medical-legal costs.

Labor Code 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical-legal expenseIncreased compensationBack-payPretextDiscriminationLayoff
References
Case No. ADJ3235679 (SFO 0509485)
Regular
Aug 02, 2011

JENNIFER MILLER vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This case involves an applicant claiming her employer violated Labor Code section 132a by discriminating against her due to work restrictions following an industrial injury. The applicant alleged she was taken off work and threatened with termination despite her ability to perform her job. The Appeals Board overturned the trial judge's finding of discrimination. They reasoned that the employer's actions were a reasonable response to escalating medical restrictions and applicant's symptoms, not discriminatory treatment. The Board found the applicant's evidence of disparate treatment compared to a coworker with a non-industrial condition was too vague and insufficient to prove discrimination.

Labor Code Section 132aDiscriminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryDriving RestrictionsCervical FusionBehavioral ClinicianPsychiatric Social WorkerTemporary Disability
References
Case No. ADJ137248
Regular
Aug 25, 2010

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENT, INC., dba RIGOLI, FIRE EXTINGUISHER; SIMPLEX, GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE, EXTINGUISHER; KURT REXIUS

The applicant, Gary Byrnes, sought reconsideration of a decision denying his claim for workers' compensation discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The administrative law judge found that while Byrnes sustained an industrial back injury, he failed to prove discrimination related to a denied $1,000 reimbursement. The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that Byrnes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his industrial injury. The Board found no evidence that the denial of the reimbursement was causally linked to the industrial injury or that other employees were treated differently.

Labor Code section 132aindustrial injurydiscriminationprima facie casedisparate treatment$1000 insurance reimbursementburden of proofbusiness realitiesreinstatement
References
Case No. ADJ5834082
Regular
Mar 22, 2010

Patricia Guillen vs. Redwood Empire Dermatology, Preferred Employers of San Diego

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original decision, finding the applicant failed to prove discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The Board determined the employer made the decision to terminate the applicant for absenteeism and tardiness *before* learning of her industrial injury. Therefore, the applicant did not prove her termination was "because of" her injury as required by law. The applicant's claim for discrimination benefits was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationterminationindustrial injuryprima facie casebusiness realitiesapplicant testimonyemployer testimonycredibility
References
Case No. AHM 0110026
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

SAMUEL C. OROPALLO vs. U.S. FOODSERVICES, INC., LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over an industrial injury and alleged Labor Code section 132a discrimination by U.S. Foodservices. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration but granted the employee's petition. The Board affirmed the original award but deferred the issues of reinstatement, lost wages/benefits, and costs related to the discrimination finding, remanding these to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability IndemnityTransitional ProgramDiscriminationReinstatementLost Wages
References
Case No. WCK 0069591
Regular
Apr 24, 2008

JIM WESTON vs. SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The applicant, a firefighter trainee, sought reconsideration of the denial of his discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a. The Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the employer did not violate section 132a, as the applicant's termination was due to performance issues and not his industrial knee injury. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his injury, as required by the *Lauher* decision.

Labor Code section 132aprima facie casediscriminationindustrial injuryfirefighterparamedicprobationary firefighteracademy trainingmodified dutyperformance evaluation
References
Showing 1-10 of 137 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