What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on August 5, 2024, denying applicant's claim under Labor Code section 132a.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Applicant failed to prove he made known his intention to file a workers' compensation claim at the time of termination and employer established a valid business reason for termination.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order, issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 5, 2024, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that Applicant's employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to his industrial accident and ordered that applicant take nothing in connection with his application for benefits under Labor Code section1 132a.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant did not make known his intention to file a workers' compensation claim at the time of termination.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without proof of intention to file claim, applicant cannot establish discrimination under Labor Code section 132a.
From the decision · page 8The court found that applicant had not filed a claim at the time of his termination, and had failed to present evidence that he had "made known his... intention to file a claim." Therefore, as a matter of law, he did not meet his burden to establish a violation of Labor Code § 132a.
Employer established a valid business reason for termination based on testimony of multiple witnesses about applicant's poor job performance and unavailability.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified the termination and negated the claim of unlawful discrimination.
From the decision · page 8Finally, the court found the employer's justification for the termination, to wit, that applicant was not conscientious in the execution of his duties, to be plausible and supported by numerous witnesses. The court found, based on testimony from multiple witnesses as detailed above, that the employer had established a valid business reason for the termination of applicant's employment.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 132a
Labor Code section 132a prohibits employer discrimination against injured workers who file or intend to file workers' compensation claims.
Applicant must prove employer discriminated against him because he filed or intended to file a claim; failure to prove intention to file claim defeats claim.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Employer witnesses testified to applicant's poor job performance and unavailability as a valid business reason for termination.
From the decision · page 7Numerous employer witnesses testified that applicant's job performance was subpar. The office manager testified that applicant had inconsistent attendance, would not show up to the office until 10:00 a.m., and would sometimes take lunch and not return to the office. (MOH 4/8/2024 at pg. 2:38-40). His use of the SkySlope software to review contracts was inconsistent and unreliable. (Id. at pg. 3:3). She received feedback from agents that there was a lack of support and inconsistent feedback. (Id. at pg. 3:8-9). His unavailability was a "very large problem." (Id. at pg. 3:8).
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.