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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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. 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. 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. ADJ7264969
Regular
Feb 22, 2011

Richard Warner vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant Richard Warner, a firefighter on Catalina Island, sustained injuries while trimming wisteria at his home, which he was required to maintain as a condition of employment and from which he sometimes worked. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the injury was not arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The applicant's home was not considered employer premises under the bunkhouse rule as he owned and maintained it personally, receiving a stipend instead of provided housing. Although working from home was sometimes necessary, trimming wisteria was deemed a purely personal act unrelated to employment duties.

AOE/COEbunkhouse ruleemployer premisessecondary jobsitecourse of employmentperforming serviceproximate causepersonal taskincidental to employmentstipend
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. ADJ6714992
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

JILL RUTH HAMILTON vs. DOHERTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's claim for psychiatric injury barred under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Board clarified that "employment" for the six-month rule means actual performance of services, not just being on the company's books or receiving benefits. The applicant's actual paid work period was 179 days (5 months and 26 days), falling short of the required six months. Therefore, her claim for psychological injury was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code section 3208.3(d)Cumulative trauma injuryPsychiatric injurySix-month employment ruleActual servicesRemuneratedSudden and extraordinary employment conditionDate of injury
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. ADJ7138792
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

HILDA BONILLA vs. CAMEO CLEANERS, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding of industrial psychiatric injury. The WCAB found the applicant's psychiatric injury claim barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) because she was employed for less than six months. The Board determined the incident, where an ironing press lowered on the applicant's hand, was not a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" as required to overcome the six-month rule. This conclusion was based on evidence that burns at a dry cleaner are common and that the machine operated with a single button, increasing the risk of such an injury.

Labor Code 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary eventsix-month employment ruledry cleanerindustrial injuryreconsiderationWCJAppeals Boardoccupational burn
References
Showing 1-10 of 6,487 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