Top 10 Workers’ Comp Cases Cited in California*

1) State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2004)

In State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2004), the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an employer's liability for workers' compensation benefits could be reduced if the employee's injury was partially caused by a pre-existing condition. The court held that an employer is responsible for the full extent of an employee's disability, regardless of whether a pre-existing condition contributed to the injury. The court emphasized that the purpose of workers' compensation is to provide prompt and adequate benefits to injured workers, and any reduction in benefits based on pre-existing conditions would undermine this objective.

2) City of Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2011)

The case of City of Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2011) involved a dispute between the City of Oakland and an employee who had suffered a work-related injury. The employee had initially received workers' compensation benefits, but the city sought to terminate these benefits based on a medical evaluation that concluded the employee's condition was no longer related to the workplace injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) disagreed with the city's decision and ruled in favor of the employee, stating that the medical evidence did not support the termination of benefits. The city appealed the decision, arguing that the WCAB had misapplied the law and that the medical evidence was sufficient to terminate benefits. The Court of Appeal upheld the WCAB's decision, finding that the board had properly applied the law and that there was substantial evidence to support its ruling. Therefore, the employee was entitled to continue receiving workers' compensation benefits.

3) County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2013)

County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2013) is a legal case that involved a dispute between the County of Los Angeles and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The case revolved around the issue of whether an employee's injury, which occurred during a voluntary recreational activity organized by the employer, should be considered compensable under workers' compensation laws. The County of Los Angeles argued that the injury should not be compensable as it occurred during a voluntary activity outside of work hours. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ruled in favor of the employee, stating that the injury was compensable as it occurred on the employer's premises and was related to the employment. The case highlights the interpretation and application of workers' compensation laws in relation to voluntary recreational activities organized by employers.

4) County of San Diego v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2015)

The case County of San Diego v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2015) involved a dispute between the County of San Diego and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The County of San Diego argued that it should not be held responsible for the medical treatment and disability benefits of a former employee who claimed to have developed a work-related injury. The County contended that the employee's injury was not caused by her job duties and that she had a pre-existing condition. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board disagreed and ruled in favor of the employee, stating that her injury was indeed work-related and that the County was liable for her medical expenses and disability benefits. The case highlighted the importance of determining the causation of injuries in workers' compensation claims and the responsibility of employers to provide appropriate benefits to injured employees.

5) County of Riverside v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2016)

County of Riverside v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2016) is a legal case that involves a dispute over the calculation of temporary disability benefits for a county employee. The employee, a deputy sheriff, was injured on the job and received temporary disability benefits based on his average weekly earnings. However, the county argued that the benefits should be calculated based on the employee's full weekly salary, including overtime pay. The case ultimately reached the California Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the employee, stating that temporary disability benefits should be calculated based on the employee's average weekly earnings, excluding overtime pay. This decision has significant implications for the calculation of temporary disability benefits in workers' compensation cases in California.

6) County of Orange v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2017)

The case County of Orange v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2017) involved a dispute between the County of Orange and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The County of Orange sought to challenge a decision by the Appeals Board that awarded workers' compensation benefits to a county employee. The employee had suffered a work-related injury and had been receiving benefits, but the County argued that the employee's injury was not directly caused by their job duties. The County claimed that the Appeals Board had misinterpreted the law and applied an incorrect standard of causation. The case ultimately focused on the issue of whether the employee's injury was sufficiently connected to their job to warrant workers' compensation benefits. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the County of Orange, finding that the employee's injury did not meet the necessary standard of causation and therefore, the Appeals Board's decision was overturned.

7) County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2018)

The case County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2018) involved a dispute between the County of San Bernardino and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The County of San Bernardino argued that it should not be held responsible for the medical treatment and disability benefits of a former employee who claimed to have developed a work-related injury. The County contended that the employee's injury was not caused by their job duties and therefore should not be covered under workers' compensation. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board disagreed and ruled in favor of the employee, stating that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim that the injury was work-related. The County of San Bernardino appealed the decision, but the court upheld the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, affirming that the employee was entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits.

8) County of Santa Clara v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2019)

County of Santa Clara v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2019) is a legal case that involves a dispute over workers' compensation benefits. The County of Santa Clara, the employer, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award benefits to an injured employee. The employee had suffered a work-related injury and was initially denied benefits by the County. However, the WCAB determined that the employee's injury was indeed work-related and awarded benefits accordingly. The County argued that the WCAB's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the employee's injury was not directly caused by their work. The case ultimately focused on the interpretation of the "arising out of employment" requirement for workers' compensation benefits. The court upheld the WCAB's decision, ruling that the employee's injury did arise out of their employment and that the WCAB's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

9) County of Sacramento v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2020)

County of Sacramento v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2020) is a legal case that involves a dispute between the County of Sacramento and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The case revolves around the issue of whether an employee's injury, which occurred during a work-related event, should be considered compensable under workers' compensation laws. The County of Sacramento argued that the injury did not arise out of employment and therefore should not be covered by workers' compensation. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board disagreed and ruled in favor of the employee, stating that the injury was indeed compensable. The case highlights the importance of determining the connection between an employee's injury and their employment in workers' compensation cases.

10) County of Fresno v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2021)

The case County of Fresno v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2021) involves a dispute between the County of Fresno and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The County of Fresno sought to challenge a decision by the Appeals Board that awarded workers' compensation benefits to a former employee. The employee had filed a claim for benefits after suffering a work-related injury. The County argued that the employee's injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, and therefore, they should not be liable for workers' compensation benefits. However, the Appeals Board disagreed and upheld the award of benefits to the employee. The County of Fresno then appealed the decision to the court, arguing that the Appeals Board had erred in its interpretation of the law. The court reviewed the case and ultimately affirmed the decision of the Appeals Board, stating that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the employee's injury was work-related. As a result, the County of Fresno was required to provide workers' compensation benefits to the former employee.

*results are a product of OpenAI’s ChatGPT and may have inaccuracies. These summaries should not be cited for use in legal pleadings, petitions, or documents.