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. ADJ12448921
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

WANDA JIMENEZ vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves applicant Wanda Jimenez's claim for a psychiatric injury sustained as a detention/probation officer, stemming from sexual harassment and retaliation by a supervisor. The defendant, County of Los Angeles, sought reconsideration of the WCJ's decision, arguing insufficient explanation of findings and a barred statute of limitations. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the WCJ's report adequately explained the decision and that the statute of limitations was tolled due to the defendant's failure to provide the applicant with a claim form. Causation was established by credible applicant testimony and supporting medical reports, and the cumulative trauma period ended with the retaliation.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheStatute of LimitationsTolledSexual HarassmentDetention Service OfficerCumulative TraumaAOE/COE
References
Case No. STK 0189109
Regular
Jul 11, 2007

ELISE L. KING vs. ACORN HOUSING COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's finding that the employer did not violate Labor Code section 132a. The Board found that the employer discharged the applicant in retaliation for her filing a workers' compensation claim. The matter is returned to the trial level for determination of benefits and penalties.

Labor Code section 132aworkers' compensationretaliationdiscriminationindustrial injuryFindings and OrdersreconsiderationWCJattorneys' feessanction
References
Case No. ADJ6837333
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

GUILLERMO MARTIN vs. QUALITY FORMING, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the applicant's claim of injury was not credible and was filed in retaliation for his termination. The judge's credibility finding, entitled to great weight, was upheld. Therefore, the applicant's claim that he sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment was not supported.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenialCredibility FindingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings and OrdersInjury Arising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentRetaliationTermination
References
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. ADJ6708774
Regular
Nov 21, 2012

AVNEET PALAHA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding its claim for credit against applicant Avneet Palaha's workers' compensation benefits. The DOT sought credit for a $305,000 civil settlement Palaha received from her employer for the same alleged sexual harassment and retaliation that led to her workers' compensation claim. The WCJ had denied the credit, interpreting the civil settlement's release clause to exclude workers' compensation claims. However, the Board found the release language preserved the employer's right to seek credit. The matter was returned for further proceedings to determine the extent of the credit, considering employer negligence and offsets for applicant's costs and fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCivil SettlementCreditDouble RecoveryEmployer NegligenceMutual ReleaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCumulative TraumaPsyche Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3525697 (LAO 0534774) ADJ2342373 (LAO 0512482) ADJ1310306 (LAO 0568035) ADJ2645702 (LAO 0519888) ADJ1384751 (LAO 0568036) ADJ2871875 (ANA 0235799)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALICE BRYANT vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA, permissibly self-insured, UCLA MEDICAL CENTER; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves applicant Alice Bryant's petition for reconsideration of prior dismissed workers' compensation claims and a Labor Code section 132a retaliation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's findings. The WCAB concluded that Bryant's claims were previously dismissed, with some dismissed by her own request and others for failure to prosecute. Furthermore, the WCAB found that Bryant failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud and lacked the required diligence to reopen these final dismissals, even with newly discovered evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRegents of the University of CaliforniaSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 132aRetaliation claimExtrinsic fraudDismissed claims
References
Case No. ADJ9999051
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

SUSANA VELAZQUEZ vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves Susana Velazquez's petition for reconsideration after her claim for work-related injury against the San Diego Unified School District was denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The WCJ found Velazquez's testimony not credible, citing witness testimony and evidence that she left work for personal reasons and had performance issues with a co-worker. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination due to observing the witnesses' demeanor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.employment injurycourse of employmentchoking incidentwitness testimonyapplicant credibilitypoor performance
References
Case No. ADJ10097589
Regular
Nov 06, 2019

JONATHAN LOYOLA vs. TIM BURKE dba MARIN CUSTOM BUILDERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award of $10,000 plus costs against Tim Burke dba Marin Custom Builders for violating Labor Code section 132a. The applicant's termination was found to be discriminatory, stemming from his industrial ankle injury, rather than job abandonment as alleged by the defendant. The Board found the defendant's stated business reasons for termination were not credible and lacked legitimate business necessity. The award amount was determined to be appropriate based on the applicant's case-in-chief settlement.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationTerminationJob abandonmentPrima facie caseRebuttalLegitimate business reasonTemporary disability benefitsIndustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ8855938
Regular
Apr 22, 2015

ARLENE SCHERY vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK, CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant suffered a compensable psychiatric injury. The Appeals Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report, giving it great weight due to the opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The WCJ found that actual employment events, including sexual harassment, a YouTube video incident, classroom heat issues, and administrative failures, were predominant in causing the applicant's psychiatric injury, outweighing any good faith personnel actions. Medical evidence from a QME further supported that the applicant's symptoms stemmed from this stressful work environment.

PSYCHIATRIC INJURYINDUSTRIAL CAUSATIONGOOD FAITH PERSONNEL ACTIONSEXUAL HARASSMENTSTUDENT HARASSMENTTEACHER HARASSMENTYOUTUBE VIDEOEXCESSIVE HEATADMINISTRATION ISSUESRETALIATION
References
Case No. ADJ7069022
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

JAVIER ESPINOZA vs. VALET DETAIL SERVICE, Doing Business As YOUR VALET, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision barring applicant Javier Espinoza from benefits. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report finding Espinoza lacked credibility and did not sustain his burden of proving an industrial injury. The WCJ's credibility findings, given great weight, were based on Espinoza's attributed work-related symptoms and his seeking medical treatment months after termination and subsequent self-employment. The Board also noted that while Espinoza's employer may not have complied with all notice requirements, this was irrelevant as no industrial injury was found.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code 3550Labor Code 3551industrial injurypost-termination defenseLabor Code 3600(a)(10)
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