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. MON 0327319
Regular
Jun 02, 2008

RAMIRO DIAZ vs. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.

This case concerns a workers' compensation claimant, Ramiro Diaz, terminated from Vons Companies after returning to work with restrictions following an industrial shoulder injury. The Appeals Board denied Vons's reconsideration request, affirming the finding that Vons violated Labor Code section 132a by illegally discriminating against the injured employee. The Board found Vons failed to follow its own progressive discipline policy and lacked credible business necessity for immediate termination, inferring retaliation for the injury.

Labor Code section 132aPrima facie caseDiscriminatory actsImpeached testimonyBusiness reality defenseProgressive disciplineSubstantial evidenceDisparate treatmentIndustrial injuryRetaliation
References
Case No. ADJ800751 (VNO 0554673)
Regular
May 24, 2012

RUBEN KESHISHIAN vs. PROGRESS RAIL SERVICE/VIC'S TRUCKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding Ruben Keshishian was employed as a truck driver by Progress Rail Service on August 30, 2007. This finding was supported by the WCJ's analysis under the *Borello* factors, which the Board adopted. The decision was further supported by cited cases from the California Supreme Court and appellate courts. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedEmployment StatusTruck DriverS.G. Borello & SonsLiberty Mutual InsuranceProgress Rail ServiceVic's TruckingWCJ OpinionAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ1036120 (SDO 0330367)
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

JESSE SUMABAT vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

This case concerns whether the applicant's valley fever is an "insidious, progressive disease" for which jurisdiction over permanent disability can be reserved. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial award, and returned the matter to the trial level. This is because the medical evidence regarding the progressive nature of the applicant's condition was contradictory and required further development. The Board emphasized that the determination of a progressive disease must be supported by substantial medical evidence stating medical probability.

Valley FeverCoccidioidomycosisProgressive DiseaseInsidious DiseasePermanent DisabilityJurisdiction ReservationJackson DoctrineGeneral Foundry ServiceRuffin CaseMedical Probability
References
Case No. ADJ11369357, ADJ11369329
Regular
May 21, 2025

GLORIA DAVIS vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Gloria Davis, the applicant, sought reconsideration of Findings and Orders issued on February 7, 2025. The original orders found she sustained a lumbar spine injury but denied her Labor Code section 132a claim for discrimination. Davis contended that the F&O was a result of fraud and WCJ bias, specifically regarding her termination from Kaiser Foundation Hospital for alleged HIPAA violations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's credibility determination and finding no evidence that Davis was discriminated against due to her industrial injuries.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGLORIA DAVISKAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESINC.ADJ11369357ADJ11369329Oakland District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONpatient care technician
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. ADJ1259913 (LBO 0390101) ADJ4077421 (LBO 0390100)
Regular
Feb 24, 2014

BELINDA WEATHERSBY vs. ABBOT LABORATORIES, FINANCIAL INSURANCE GUARANTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated a prior award concerning applicant's psychological injury claim. The Board found that the administrative law judge did not fully address the employer's affirmative defenses of a good faith personnel action. Therefore, the case is remanded for the judge to conduct a *Rolda* analysis and re-evaluate the good faith personnel action defense. Issues regarding post-termination claims and temporary disability benefits were addressed, with the post-termination claims being dismissed, but the question of temporary disability benefits requires further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjurySales AssociateTemporary Disability IndemnityAffirmative DefenseLawful Personnel ActionPost-Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3208.3(h)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
References
Case No. ADJ9137744
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

CHARLES MONTIERTH vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED

This case concerns whether the applicant's skin cancer qualifies as an insidious progressive disease. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that it does, based on evidence of a significantly elevated risk of recurrence and potential for increased disability, justifying reserved jurisdiction over permanent disability. This ruling aligns with precedent allowing for such reservation in cases of progressive diseases with uncertain future outcomes. Therefore, the original Findings and Award are affirmed.

Insidious progressive diseaseJackson doctrineReservation of jurisdictionPermanent disabilitySkin cancerMalignant melanomaBasal cell carcinomaActinic keratosesLifetime surveillanceMedical monitoring
References
Case No. ADJ7441132
Regular
Jul 20, 2012

Patrick O'Brien vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the original award. The Board found that the applicant's skin cancer was not an insidious progressive disease, reversing the prior reservation of jurisdiction over permanent disability. This decision aligns with previous rulings that such reservation is only appropriate for diseases with a demonstrable likelihood of future progression or recurrence. Consequently, the finding of injury was amended to specify the exact locations and types of skin damage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatrick O'BrienCounty of San DiegoSheriff Sergeantindustrial injuryskin damagesolar skin damagecancerinsidious progressive diseasepermanent disability
References
Case No. ADJ8249857
Regular
Jan 19, 2016

LARRY ADAIR vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for skin cancer, arguing the permanent disability rating was insufficient and jurisdiction should be reserved due to the progressive nature of the disease. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the original award but amending it to include a finding that the applicant is entitled to the presumption of compensability for skin cancer under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Board found no substantial evidence that the applicant's skin cancer was an insidious progressive disease warranting jurisdiction reservation, as it had been excised and declared permanent and stationary.

ADJ8249857Petition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentAOE/COEpermanent disabilityreservation of jurisdictionsubstantial medical evidenceprimary treating physicianpanel qualified medical evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ1232764
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

ALEXANDRA CULLEN-WRIGHT vs. CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying jurisdiction to amend a prior award, arguing her RSD constitutes an insidious, progressive disease exempting it from the five-year statute of limitations. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate her RSD met the criteria for an insidious, progressive disease as defined in *General Foundry Service v. WCAB*. Furthermore, the Board noted the original decision did not reserve jurisdiction and no timely petition to reopen was filed to address this possibility. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to amend the award over five years post-injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5804cumulative injurycomplex regional pain syndromeRSDagreed medical examinersubstantial evidencepermanent and stationarysympathetic ganglion blockpetition to set aside
References
Showing 1-10 of 65 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