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. ADJ7775170
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

JUANA NEGRETE vs. SHURFLO, HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's workers' compensation claim filed after layoff, triggering Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant met her burden of proof that she notified her employer of her injury prior to her layoff. The applicant's unrebutted testimony and supporting medical evidence demonstrated employer notice, thus overcoming the statutory bar to compensation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJuana NegreteShurfloHampshire Insurance CompanyADJ7775170Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationbilateral armsbilateral elbowssleep problems
References
Case No. ADJ6757162
Regular
Dec 14, 2016

JOSEPH BRABANDER vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns defendant Cedars-Sinai's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation finding. The administrative law judge found the applicant's cumulative trauma claim, filed after his layoff notice, was not barred by the statute of limitations or Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the applicant's date of injury, determined by when he suffered disability and knew it was work-related, occurred after his layoff notice. Therefore, exception (D) to Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) applied.

cumulative traumaStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimspreponderance of the evidencenotice of terminationlayoffknowledge of injurydisabilityoccupational diseases
References
Case No. ADJ6668547
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

MARIA COVARRUBIAS vs. KELLY SERVICES, INC., ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to applicant Maria Covarrubias. The Board rescinded the prior decision that barred her claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) due to a post-termination filing defense. The Board found that the applicant, as a temporary agency employee, was not terminated or laid off prior to reporting her injury. Therefore, her claim is not barred, and the matter is returned for further proceedings on other issues.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Orderindustrial injuryneck and left shouldertemporary agencylayoffterminationactive employee
References
Case No. SFO 0487051
Regular
Jul 22, 2008

JOSEPH DELLAFOSSE vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether Joseph Dellafosse's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on March 24, 2004, is barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the employer had notice of the injury before layoff notice or that medical records pre-dated the layoff notice. A dissenting commissioner argued the employer failed to prove it was a post-termination claim first, and that the applicant's testimony regarding the sequence of injury notification and layoff notice was improperly discredited.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimnotice of layoffnotice of injurypreponderance of evidenceaffirmative defenseAOE/COEcredibilityworkers' compensationWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ8623408
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

Marina Espericueta vs. SAS SAFETY CORPORATION, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, concluding there was no substantial medical evidence of an industrial injury. Furthermore, the applicant's claim was barred by the post-termination rule (Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)) as she failed to prove employer notice of injury prior to layoff. The denial of the claim was also found to be timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReport of WCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimCumulative traumaSubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code § 5402Timely denial
References
Case No. ADJ11399627
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

ISAI CHILEL vs. KISHO, INC. dba SUSHI CALIFORNIA, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to overturn a finding that the applicant sustained a work-related injury and that it was not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish termination or layoff under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Evidence regarding the applicant's departure from employment was ambiguous, not clearly establishing a termination rather than a voluntary resignation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensepetition for reconsiderationfindings and orderapplicantdefendantinjuryleft handsubstantial medical evidence
References
Case No. ADJ6548054
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

ROBERT ROTH vs. WABI SABI TEPPAN STEAKHOUSE, AVIZENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to applicant Robert Roth. The Board found that Roth's claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) because his medical records contained evidence of his hernia injury prior to his layoff. This decision overturns the WCJ's prior finding that the claim was barred due to a lack of documented causation in the pre-termination medical records. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the remaining issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial injuryherniadiverticulitispsycheabdominal injurypre-existing condition
References
Case No. ADJ1417978 (STK 0211694)
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

ROBERTO MANZO vs. MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES, CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The applicant, Roberto Manzo, sought reconsideration of the finding that he was laid off due to lack of work, not as retaliation for his injury claim, and therefore no violation of Labor Code § 132a occurred. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation judge, who found ample evidence to support the conclusion of a layoff due to lack of work, not discrimination. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations based on the evidence presented.

WCABReconsiderationLabor Code § 132aCarpenterInjuryMcCarthy Building CompaniesChartisWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings of FactPermanent Disability
References
Case No. ADJ6818376 ADJ6818374 ADJ7135107
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

DAVID CARRASCO vs. NAMCO CYBERTAINMENT, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns David Carrasco's workers' compensation claim for industrial injuries sustained while employed by Namco Cybertainment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Carrasco's petition for reconsideration, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's findings. The Board found that Carrasco failed to prove his claimed injuries by a preponderance of evidence, citing a lack of credible testimony and substantial medical evidence. Additionally, the employer's failure to post notices did not create a presumption of injury, and Carrasco did not meet the requirements of Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) for claims filed after layoff.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryRoute ManagerPreponderance of EvidenceLabor Code Section 5401Labor Code Section 3550Labor Code Section 3551Reconsideration DeniedCumulative TraumaSection 3600(a)(10)
References
Case No. ADJ6941604
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

ARTURO PALACIOS vs. MARK WINDOW PRODUCTS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that denied applicant benefits. The Board found that the applicant's claim was not barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10) because the date of injury, as defined by the applicant's disability and knowledge of its cause, occurred after he received notice of layoff. This was based on medical opinions obtained after the layoff notice, establishing disability subsequent to the notice. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)reconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationcumulative traumanotice of layoffdate of injurysection 5412disabilityknowledge of causemedical records
References
Showing 1-10 of 37 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