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. ADJ8258390, ADJ8246247, ADJ9024430
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

HAMIDULLAH SARWARY vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a finding that he failed to prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating him after resolving his workers' compensation claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior order, finding the judge's decision lacked clarity regarding evidence of termination and temporal proximity between settlement and separation. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to develop the record on whether the applicant was terminated due to his settlement and if such termination was necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aRetaliationDiscriminationTerminationCompromise and ReleasePrima facie caseBusiness realitiesTemporal proximityDisadvantageous treatmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9298865
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

Oscar Scagliotti vs. Elmore Toyota

This case concerns Oscar Scagliotti's claim of retaliatory termination by Elmore Toyota in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Scagliotti established a prima facie case by showing his termination occurred immediately after he left work for industrial injury treatment. The Board found Elmore Toyota's stated reason of leaving without permission was not credible and contradicted by the close temporal proximity to his injury notification and deviation from standard procedures. Compensation and penalties are deferred pending further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie ClaimTerminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical TreatmentDisadvantageous Treatment
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 The Appeals Board granted France's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous Findings and Award, and substituted new findings.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. ADJ6550105, ADJ6976802, ADJ6777361
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

ESTHER GARCIA vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's reconsideration petition and granted the applicant's. The Board amended the previous award to find that the applicant met her initial burden of proof for a Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim, specifically regarding her demotion after sustaining industrial injuries. However, the issue of whether the employer had a legitimate business reason for the demotion was deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board upheld the WCJ's findings regarding the applicant's permanent disability and the substantiality of the agreed medical evaluator's opinion.

Labor Code Section 132aDemotionIndustrial InjuryDiscriminationReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentPrima Facie CaseLegitimate Business Reason
References
Case No. ADJ4450571
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

JOSE SANCHEZ vs. BAKU CORPORATION, dba ALDER CREEK MILLWORKS, CLARENDON INSURANCE, Adjusted By AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The WCJ dismissed applicant's claim for failure to prosecute. The WCAB lacked jurisdiction because the applicant is not an injured worker. Upon reconsideration, the WCAB reversed the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliatory terminationwitness testimonyfailure to prosecutejurisdictionpetition for reconsiderationadministrative law judgejudicial economy
References
Case No. NOR 0207190
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

CHRIS RACHAL vs. NELSON DODGE, INC./NELSON GROUP OF DEALERSHIPS dba NELSON HONDA

The applicant sustained admitted injuries from a motor vehicle accident while test driving a car for his employer. The applicant sought increased compensation under Labor Code section 4553, alleging serious and willful misconduct by the employer due to faulty brakes, but this was denied. The Appeals Board found insufficient evidence that faulty brakes proximately caused the injury or that the employer had knowledge of any alleged defect, upholding the WCJ's decision.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553increased compensationindustrial injuryproximate causefaulty brakesemployer knowledgeepilepsyinattentionseizure
References
Case No. SBR 0335761
Regular
Feb 01, 2008

JAGDEV PANDHER vs. ROSS DISTRIBUTION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in three sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's hand injury was compensable. The Board found the employer failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that alcohol intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury. Crucially, the available blood test results were inconclusive and explicitly stated they might not be accurate, and no witnesses observed the applicant exhibiting signs of intoxication at the time of the incident.

PandherRoss DistributionSedgwick Claims Management Servicesintoxication defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(4)proximate causepreponderance of the evidenceETOH mg/dLchain of custodyblood sample
References
Case No. ADJ972426 (ANA 0405051)
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

DONALD STOW vs. SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award that found the employer liable for serious and willful misconduct. The Board rescinded the award, finding the applicant's failure to wear provided safety goggles was the proximate cause of his eye injury during a training exercise. While the employer's provision of goggles instead of a full face mask may have been negligent, it did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct as defined by law. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the 50% compensation increase.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDonald StowSanta Ana Police Departmentserious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553industrial injuryright eyepolice officertraining exercisesimunition
References
Case No. ADJ6465992
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

WILLIAM HUFFORD vs. HOWELL'S FOREST HARVESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior decision that denied applicant William Hufford's claim for benefits. The Board found that the defendants failed to prove either that Hufford was intoxicated at the time of his accident or that any potential intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury. Furthermore, the Board determined that even if the "going and coming rule" would normally apply, an exception exists because the employer provided the vehicle and it was used as an incident of employment. Consequently, Hufford's injury was found to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6465992Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationCompensable InjuryArising Out of and in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Intoxication DefenseProximate CauseGoing and Coming RuleVehicle-Use ExceptionBlood Alcohol Level
References
Case No. ADJ1099822 (LAO 0828806)
Regular
Jan 20, 2010

CLAUDIO SOTO vs. RAMON VERDIN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior award finding serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Ramon Verdin. The Board determined that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof required by Labor Code section 4553.1. Specifically, the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the absence of a miter saw guard was the proximate cause of the applicant's injury. Furthermore, the employer's knowledge of the safety violation or the obviousness of the dangerous condition, as required by statute, was not adequately proven on this record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553.1Safety Standard ViolationMiter Saw GuardProximate CauseIndustrial InjuryFindings and AwardReconsiderationOpinion and Order
References
Showing 1-10 of 78 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