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. ADJ6968776
Regular
Apr 29, 2013

MARTHA IBARRA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, INC.

This case involves Martha Ibarra's cumulative trauma injury claim against 99 Cents Only Stores. The defendant sought to bar the claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that while the specific condition of prior medical records for the cumulative trauma injury was not met, the injury date being subsequent to notice of termination, as defined by Labor Code section 5412, satisfied the exception under section 3600(a)(10)(D). The Board amended the Findings of Fact to reflect this, affirmed the finding of injury to the upper extremities and spine, and returned the case for further proceedings, while deferring the issue of psychological injury.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3208.3(e)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCumulative Trauma InjuryUpper ExtremitiesSpinePsycheAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
References
0
Case No. ADJ3358392
Regular
Oct 04, 2011

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Permissibly Self-Insured, AIMS

This case involves a deputy sheriff's claim for a left knee injury sustained in August 2005. The defendant employer argued the claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) due to a post-termination filing and insufficient evidence. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, ruling the employer had actual notice of the injury prior to termination, satisfying an exception to section 3600(a)(10)(A). Therefore, the claim was deemed compensable and not barred by the post-termination defense.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurydeputy sheriffKern County Sheriff's DepartmentLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensenotice of injurySergeant Goodingqualified medical evaluatorThor Gjerdrum M.D.
References
3
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
2
Case No. ADJ7170225
Regular
Oct 14, 2011

GLORIA RODRIGUEZ vs. NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH CENTER, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) barred the applicant's claim as she was no longer an employee when injured. However, the Board found that an employee is considered to remain within the employment relationship for workers' compensation purposes for a reasonable time while leaving the employer's premises after termination. Therefore, the applicant's fall, which occurred on the employer's property after termination but while leaving, was covered by workers' compensation and not barred by section 3600(a)(10).

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defenseworkers' compensation coverageinjury arising out of employmentcourse of employmentemployee statusorderly terminationreasonable timeemployer premisesWCJ decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ7472390
Regular
Mar 09, 2012

MARIA GARCIA vs. TRIBUNE COMPANY dba CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY NEWS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE c/o GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Board found that the applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her employer had notice of her alleged shoulder injury prior to her termination, or that medical records existed showing the injury before termination. This failure, coupled with the applicant's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborating evidence, meant her claim was barred as a post-termination injury. Consequently, the Board substituted its own findings, deeming the claim barred under section 3600(a)(10).

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimnotice of injurytermination or layoffpreponderance of the evidenceindustrial injurypsychesleep lossupper backlower back
References
2
Case No. ADJ4014154 (ANA 0408143)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

JUAN LOPEZ vs. LIBERTY GLASS FABRICATORS, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker claiming a back injury on October 1, 2007, but reporting it on October 5, 2007, the same day his employment was terminated. The employer contends the claim is barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim, arguing the worker's notice of injury was not provided prior to termination. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversed the initial award, and found the claim non-compensable, ruling the worker failed to provide timely notice of the injury before his termination. The Board emphasized the purpose of section 3600(a)(10) is to prevent spurious claims filed after termination.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompensable industrial injuryLaborerLiberty Glass FabricatorsAmerican Home Assurance CompanyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. ADJ6910802
Regular
Jul 30, 2010

JORGE ESCALANTE vs. CINTAS CORPORATION, EXCEL SPECIALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine if the applicant's claim for industrial injury to his right shoulder and cervical spine is barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The initial finding of injury AOE/COE by the WCJ is supported by evidence, but the WCAB rescinded this decision to allow the parties to fully litigate the post-termination defense. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to hear evidence on whether the applicant's claim is barred or if any exceptions under section 3600(a)(10) apply. This ensures due process for both applicant and defendant regarding the application of the post-termination statute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJorge EscalanteCintas CorporationExcel Specialty InsuranceReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderCervical SpineLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
References
10
Case No. ADJ7257085
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

RAMON MACIAS vs. SOUTHWIRE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns an applicant claiming back, hip, and ankle injury from May 1, 2009, who reported it during an exit interview on March 22, 2010, after receiving notice of termination. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the trial judge's findings based on parties' stipulations that the injury was reported post-termination without notice to the employer beforehand. The Board found that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) bars claims filed after notice of termination unless specific exceptions apply, and the applicant's reported injury date predates termination notice. The issue of potential exceptions under section 3600(a)(10) remains reserved for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimExit interviewActual notice of terminationStipulationsWCABReconsideration deniedPreponderance of evidenceExceptions to denialCompensable injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ9908298
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

ELIZABETH SOTO vs. MOLEX, INC. dba AFFINITY MEDICAL, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify a previous order, rescinding the original Findings and Order. The defendant argued the claim was barred by the post-termination defense, but the WCAB found exceptions applied under Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10)(A) and 3600(a)(10)(D). The WCAB determined the date of injury was March 5, 2015, subsequent to the termination notice, and returned the case for further proceedings to develop the medical record regarding the extent of the applicant's injuries.

post-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D)Labor Code section 5412cumulative traumacompensable disabilityknowledge of industrial causationdate of injurynotice of terminationU.S. HealthWorks
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,599 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