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. ADJ8128282
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

ANGELA EGBIKUADJE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, returning the case for further proceedings. The defendant, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, argued that the applicant's psychiatric injury claim was preempted by the ADA and not proven under Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board found the original decision lacked proper analysis regarding predominant industrial causation and the good faith personnel action defense. Therefore, the case was remanded for further development of the record, including expert medical opinion on these issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAngela EgbikuadjeCalifornia Department of Corrections and RehabilitationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8128282Van Nuys District OfficeReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial cumulative trauma injury
References
Case No. ADJ7432904
Regular
Sep 24, 2012

NEDA MOTAVAKEL vs. FANTASTIC SAM'S, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE CO., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLP, STAR INSURANCE CO., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLP, ENDURANCE WORKERS' COMPENSATION, SOUTHERN INSURANCE CO., FIRSTCOMP OMAHA

This case involves an appeal by Star and Tower Insurance Companies regarding a workers' compensation award. The primary issue is the applicant's average weekly earnings, specifically the inclusion of tip income, which was not adequately substantiated by documentary evidence. The Appeals Board found the initial decision lacked substantial evidence regarding earnings and rescinded the award. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to properly develop the evidentiary record on earnings and insurance coverage dates before a new decision is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeda MotavakelFantastic Sam'sTower Select Insurance CompanyStar Insurance CompanyIllinois Midwest Insurance AgencyLLEndurance Workers' CompensationSouthern Insurance CompanyFirstComp Omaha
References
Case No. ADJ11298015
Regular
May 27, 2025

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that she was precluded from a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit, despite receiving a second Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The applicant contended that her second voucher was 'subsequent' to her first RTWSP payment, fulfilling an exception in Rule 17302(b). The Appeals Board clarified that the exception refers to the date of injury being subsequent, not the voucher issuance date. As the record lacked a finding on the cumulative trauma date of injury, the Board rescinded the previous order and returned the case to the trial level for this determination.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB vouchercumulative trauma injuryspecific injurydate of injuryLabor Code section 139.48Rule 17302Rule 17309Administrative Procedures Act
References
Case No. ADJ8540514
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

YESSICA FONSECA vs. E.H. SUMMIT, INC., dba LUXE HOTEL, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's prior award due to the parties entering settlement negotiations. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the WCJ can reissue their prior decision.

ReconsiderationRescindedSettlementTrial LevelFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryHousekeeperWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Reconsideration
References
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. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
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
Case No. ADJ8833300, ADJ8833298
Regular
Oct 20, 2019

RICHARD FEIGEL PEREZ vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, JT-2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The applicant alleged the defendant City of Oakland violated Labor Code section 132a by discriminating against him when returning to work after an industrial injury. The Board found the record unclear as to whether the defendant deviated from its own return-to-work procedures as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, specifically regarding the review of treating physician reports and the scheduling of fitness-for-duty tests. Further development of the record is needed to determine if a prima facie case of discrimination was established and if the defendant had legitimate business reasons for its actions.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationFitness for Duty TestReturn to WorkMemorandum of Understanding (MOU)Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)WCAB
References
Case No. ADJ3592250 (ANA 0396744)
Regular
Oct 12, 2009

JOSE JURADO vs. GOLDEN WEST TOWING EQUIPMENT, ACE USA In Care Of ESIS

Reconsideration granted; decision rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJreconsiderrescindreturnedtrial levelfurther proceedingsdecision after reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ6410496
Regular
Dec 21, 2009

JAKE BOATMAN vs. TOWN OF WINDSOR, PSI, by REMIF

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision disallowing a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity under Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A) because the applicant returned to work quickly and the employer's offer to return to work was made after the 60 day time requirement and was not made in accordance with the statute.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4658(d)(3)(A)ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardJob OfferRetroactive PeriodWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent and StationaryReturn to Work
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,207 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