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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. 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. 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. 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. 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
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
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. ADJ10009703 ADJ10043837
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

ZULAY DAVILA vs. EMPLOYERS RESOURCE GROUP, VENSURE HR, INC., LCF LIBERTY JR, LLC/SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, PROPORTION FOODS, LLC/REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to a due process violation. The WCJ had determined employment by ERG without providing ERG notice and an opportunity to be heard. The WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to determine employment status. Issues of insurance coverage will be subject to mandatory arbitration once employment is established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVENSURE HRSecurity National Insurance CompanyProportion FoodsLLCREDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIESAMTRUST NORTH AMERICAEMPLOYMENT RESOURCES GROUPINC.
References
Case No. ADJ2582936
Regular
May 20, 2011

MAYRA ENRIQUEZ vs. NOUVEUR DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision to deny compensation for the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. Applicant, employed for less than six months, argued her injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Board found that catching her hand in a machine was a foreseeable, ordinary risk of her job, not an extraordinary event. Therefore, Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by an extraordinary condition, barred recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementsudden and extraordinaryregular and routinemachine operatorindustrial injurypetition for reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,762 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