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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
Case No. ADJ3947517
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

RUDY GONZALES vs. CELITE CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior ruling that his claim for retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was terminated by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on January 1, 2009. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition, vacating the Rehabilitation Unit's order awarding VRMA because the applicant's right to benefits had not vested in a final order before the effective date of the repeal. The Board clarified that a determination of Qualified Injured Worker status does not constitute a final award of VRMA, and jurisdiction over such claims cannot be conferred by waiver. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any further vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationVRMAQIWvested rightinchoate rightfinal orderrepealjurisdictionreconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ2862114
Regular
Oct 30, 2008

PATRICIA TRUJILLO vs. EARTHLINK, INC., CHUBB INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that the defendant, Earthlink, Inc., owes vocational rehabilitation benefits to the applicant, Patricia Trujillo. The court found that the defendant failed to provide legally required notices when the applicant deferred vocational rehabilitation services. This failure meant the deferral was invalid, making the defendant liable for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) from the date of the notice breach.

Vocational rehabilitationAD Rule 9813(a)(4)VRMAdeferral of servicesnotice requirementsclaims administratorinterrupted servicesreinstatement of servicesstatute of limitationsemployer's duty
References
6
Case No. ADJ2477078 (SAC 0271339)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Frances Carlson vs. Blue Cross of California, California Insurance Guarantee Association (for Fremont, in Liquidation)

This case concerns applicant Frances Carlson's claim for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits stemming from a cumulative trauma injury ending October 16, 1996. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's award of VRMA. This decision was based on the en banc rulings in *Weiner I* and *Weiner II*, which held that the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 terminated rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits for awards not final before January 1, 2009. Since Carlson's VRMA claim was not final before that date, the WCAB found it lacked jurisdiction and rescinded the award.

CIGAFremont in liquidationcumulative traumaVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMANotice of Potential EligibilityNOPELabor Code section 139.5Weiner v. Ralphs Companyvested rights
References
2
Case No. ADJ2860436
Regular
Dec 02, 2011

HAROLD DAVID WATSON vs. VANCE INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL FIRE CO. OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a prior decision finding the employer's appeal of a vocational rehabilitation benefits determination was timely filed. The Appeals Board upheld its prior finding, determining that the employer filed its appeal on December 11, 2008, which was before the January 1, 2009 repeal of the vocational rehabilitation statute. Because the appeal was timely and the right to benefits was not vested prior to the repeal, the applicant is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational rehabilitation benefitsLabor Code section 139.5Appeal PetitionDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPersonal serviceService by mailDocument Cover SheetWCAB District OfficeProof of service
References
50
Case No. ADJ721289 (POM 0278079) ADJ820025 (LBO 0312141) ADJ1988208 (POM 0278080) ADJ6759922
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

GEORGE VELASQUEZ vs. RALPHS, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Court of Appeal ruled that Ralphs' initial appeal of vocational rehabilitation benefits was timely despite lacking a Declaration of Readiness. However, the applicant's vocational rehabilitation award was not final before Labor Code section 139.5 was repealed on January 1, 2009. Consequently, the applicant's right to these benefits expired, and the Appeals Board lost jurisdiction. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and ordered that the applicant take nothing for vocational rehabilitation benefits.

RemittiturRehabilitation UnitDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)vocational rehabilitation benefitsLabor Code section 139.5finality of awardjurisdictionappeal timelinessannulmentreconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ3846659 (VNO0418631) ADJ4148234 (VNO0456818)
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MICHELE SHELMAN vs. OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC.; CIGA For Reliance In Liquidation, Administered By SEDGWICK

The applicant's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was denied reconsideration. This is because Labor Code section 139.5, which authorized these benefits, was repealed effective December 31, 2008. The applicant's right to these benefits had not vested before the repeal, as the Rehabilitation Unit's decision was still subject to appeal. Consequently, the repeal extinguished the applicant's inchoate rights to vocational rehabilitation services.

Vocational rehabilitationLabor Code section 139.5Repeal of statuteVesting of rightsInchoate rightsFinal judgmentRehabilitation UnitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedBoganim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Union-Endicott Central School District & Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers' Ass'n ex rel. Kolmel

Petitioner Peters appealed a Supreme Court order denying a stay of arbitration between Peters and the Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers’ Association, and George Kolmel. Kolmel, a maintenance worker, had resigned but was subsequently terminated after allegations of a sex offense. The Union filed a grievance asserting a violation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding retirement health benefits, arguing Kolmel met the eligibility requirements despite his termination. The Supreme Court compelled arbitration, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The court ruled that arbitration of postemployment health benefits is permissible, not against public policy, and falls within the broad arbitration clause of the CBA, regardless of the employee's termination for misconduct.

Arbitration DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement Health BenefitsEmployee DismissalMisconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ProhibitionArbitrabilityPostemployment BenefitsAppellate AffirmationLabor Law
References
14
Case No. AHM 0116452 AHM 0116457 AHM 0116470
Regular
Jul 21, 2008

BRUCE SERVISS vs. RALPH'S GROCERY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the award to clarify that the applicant is not entitled to duplicative temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance payments for the same period. The Board found the defendant breached its duty to provide timely vocational rehabilitation notices after the applicant's January 16, 2004 permanent and stationary date. Consequently, the defendant remains liable for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance from that date, adjusted for prior payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationMaintenance AllowanceTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryMeat CutterRalph's GrocerySedgwick Claims Management ServicesPermanent and Stationary
References
6
Case No. STK 178713
Regular
Sep 17, 2007

FRED VAN DYKEN vs. FRAGOMEN, DEL RAY, BERNSEN & LOWERY, ATLANTIC MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision. While affirming the apportionment of permanent disability and the credit for overpaid indemnity, the Board found the employer unreasonably delayed vocational rehabilitation benefits. The applicant is now entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance at the temporary disability rate for the period of that delay.

Vocational RehabilitationApportionmentQualified Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityEMG/NCV StudiesRehabilitation UnitDelay of BenefitsThird Party CreditVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,853 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