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. 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. ADJ3566620 (SBR 0331934) ADJ3758235 (SBR 0336076)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

MELANIE MEDBERY vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Payless Shoe Source's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and lower extremity. Crucially, they affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that Payless violated Labor Code section 132a by unlawfully terminating the applicant. The employer's stated reason for termination, a violation of the attendance policy, was deemed pretextual and not supported by the evidence or the company's own handbook.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryRight Lower Extremity InjuryLabor Code Section 132aViolationDiscriminationDifferential Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ9298865
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

Oscar Scagliotti vs. Elmore Toyota

This case concerns Oscar Scagliotti's claim of retaliatory termination by Elmore Toyota in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Scagliotti established a prima facie case by showing his termination occurred immediately after he left work for industrial injury treatment. The Board found Elmore Toyota's stated reason of leaving without permission was not credible and contradicted by the close temporal proximity to his injury notification and deviation from standard procedures. Compensation and penalties are deferred pending further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie ClaimTerminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical TreatmentDisadvantageous Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ5631403 ADJ8129890 ADJ9031437 ADJ7129072 ADJ8214161
Regular
Aug 12, 2019

VALERIE SPENCER vs. MENDON AND MENDON, INC., dba MENDON'S NURSERY

This case concerns Valerie Spencer's claim that her employer, Mendon and Mendon, Inc., violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating her employment due to her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board rescinded a prior finding, concluding that the employer's actions constituted discrimination under section 132a. This decision was based on the close temporal proximity between the notice of representation and termination, and the employer's failure to establish a legitimate business reason. Issues regarding penalty amounts, lost wages, and reinstatement are deferred for further proceedings.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimTerminationNotice of RepresentationPrima Facie CaseBusiness Realities DefensePretextLost Wages
References
Case No. ADJ10738767; ADJ14240277; ADJ14240278
Regular
Jun 18, 2025

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

Applicant Jeanette France sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, which had found that she failed to prove discrimination under Labor Code section 132a following her termination. The Appeals Board granted France's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board concluded that the defendant, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, violated Labor Code section 132a by discharging France on February 1, 2017. This decision was based on France establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, and the defendant failing to provide substantial evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination, despite allegations of poor performance.

Labor Code Section 132adiscriminationretaliationterminationindustrial injuryprima facie caseburden of proofpretextbusiness realitiesemergency hire
References
Case No. ADJ6744369
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

MIKE SANDOVAL vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant alleging a violation of Labor Code section 132a for termination following a back injury. While the applicant demonstrated detriment from termination and an industrial injury, the Appeals Board overturned the finding of a 132a violation. The employer terminated the applicant due to a sincere belief he obtained temporary alternate work (TAW) under false pretenses, not solely because of his injury. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement or increased benefits under section 132a, though temporary disability benefits are awarded.

Labor Code Section 132aDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentBusiness RealitiesTemporary Alternate Work (TAW)Theft of WagesFalsification of Claim
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. ADJ9103550
Regular
May 13, 2015

GERARDO GONZALEZ vs. CTS MFG ELECTRONICS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), who determined the applicant was not entitled to benefits. The WCJ found the applicant lacked credibility, particularly regarding reporting his alleged injury before termination. Credible defense witnesses contradicted the applicant's account, and the applicant's own email communications failed to mention any injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of benefitsunreported injurytermination of employmentdefense witnessesdeposition testimonye-mail communicationswitness credibility
References
Showing 1-8 of 8 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