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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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. ADJ7217859, ADJ7544106
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

YOLANDA MARTINEZ vs. MASS PRECISION, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, SCI @ BALANCE STAFFING SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves applicant Yolanda Martinez claiming industrial injuries (lumbar spine, right shoulder, psyche) from her employment at Mass Precision. Defendant Zurich North America, insurer for SCI @ Balance Staffing Service, contested liability for the psyche injury, arguing applicant's employment by SCI was less than the six-month statutory minimum. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of joint and several liability, holding that prior employment at the same worksite with dual employers counts towards the six-month requirement for psyche injury claims. This decision was based on the principle that the six-month rule aims to prevent claims from routine stress in new employment, a purpose not served when an employee has a longer-term relationship with the worksite.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma InjuryApportionmentPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment RequirementDual EmploymentGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
Case No. VNO 0470470
Regular
May 12, 2008

GERARDO RAMIREZ vs. WILLIAM ALONSO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning applicant Gerardo Ramirez's employment status at the time of his injury. The Board rescinded the previous findings, finding the evidence insufficient to support dual employment and needing clarification on whether applicant was a casual employee, which might affect his eligibility for benefits. The case was returned to the trial level for additional evidence gathering, including a review of the defendant's insurance policy for the property where the injury occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Fundindustrial injuryright major extremitydefendant's contentiondual employmentthreshold issueemployment relationshippresumption of employmentjoint venture
References
Case No. ANA 0363299
Regular
Jan 03, 2008

JONATHON ROONEY vs. LOWE'S, KEMPER/RELIANCE By SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior ruling that an employee can receive compensation for a psychiatric injury even if the underlying physical injury occurred within the first six months of employment. The Board's decision relies on precedent establishing that Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)'s six-month employment requirement is met if the total duration of employment exceeds six months, regardless of whether that period was fully completed before the date of injury. This interpretation aims to prevent fraudulent claims during an employee's initial probationary period, a purpose not undermined when employment continues beyond six months.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementcompensable consequencedate of injuryemployment durationpetition for reconsiderationworkers' compensationCaliforniaapplicant
References
Case No. ADJ12744384
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

CHEYANNE MORENO vs. CALSELECT INSURANCE SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 9, 2021. The F&O found that the applicant, Cheyanne Moreno, did not sustain a psychiatric injury due to a sudden and extraordinary event, thereby not qualifying for an exception to the six-month employment requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The WCAB determined that the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) erroneously misassigned the burden of proof regarding the six-month employment period to the applicant. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the F&O and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to properly develop the record on whether the defendant can establish that the applicant's employment period was less than six months.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment requirementburden of proofrescinded Findings and Orderreturn to trial levelAOE/COEpreponderance of the evidencecumulative injury
References
Case No. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
Case No. ADJ4521232 (MON 026903)
Regular
May 10, 2010

DELFINA MARTINEZ vs. TARRANT APPAREL dba FASHION RESOURCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns applicant Delfina Martinez's psychiatric injury claim against Tarrant Apparel, which was initially denied due to less than six months of direct employment, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Martinez's prior employment as a special employee for Tarrant Apparel for over six months, through a staffing agency, satisfied the statutory requirement. The Board held that the time spent as a special employee counts towards the six-month employment period for the purpose of psychiatric injury claims. Therefore, the prior decision barring the claim was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injuryspecial employeegeneral employerspecial employerjoint employmentsix-month rulefashion resourcepersonnel plusindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ1921631
Regular
Aug 03, 2009

HERNAN MARTINEZ vs. YAMATO RESTAURANT, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sustained industrial injuries to his back and psyche, claiming a sleep disorder. The defendant sought to raise Labor Code § 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims, but the WCJ initially denied this. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the six-month rule can be raised at any time as it pertains to compensation payment, not jurisdiction. The Board amended the WCJ's order to allow the defendant to raise this issue at trial.

RemovalLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six-month rulePsychiatric injuryCompensabilityStipulationIndustrial injuryPetition for RemovalWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9602695
Regular
Sep 26, 2019

KELLY MULDROW vs. AMS OUTSOURCING/STAFFCHEX, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ULLICO, SEDGWICK CMS, SENBA USA, INC., MITSUI SUMITOMO

This case concerns applicant Kelly Muldrow's claim for psychiatric injury stemming from her employment. The primary dispute revolves around the applicability of Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which generally requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, remanding the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This is because the prior ruling improperly deferred the threshold issue of section 3208.3(d)'s applicability without fully adjudicating it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKelly MuldrowAMS OutsourcingStaffchexCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAUllicoSedgwick CMSSenba USAMitsui Sumitomo
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,236 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