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. ADJ2984143 (LBO 0340645) MF ADJ3946341 (LBO 0340644) ADJ896223 (LBO 0340643)
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

FERNANDO GUZMAN vs. ACU-AIR CARGO, LLC, PARSONS TRANSPORTATION, LLC, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's decision that barred the applicant's claims due to the employer's bankruptcy. The Board clarified that a bankruptcy discharge injunction does not prevent a WCAB proceeding if the goal is to collect from a collateral source like the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF), not the discharged bankrupt employer personally. Relying on *In Re Munoz*, the Board held that a WCAB proceeding can continue to establish an award against the bankrupt employer, which is a necessary precursor for the UEF to pay. Therefore, the applicant may proceed with their claims before the WCAB, provided they stipulate they are not seeking personal recovery from the bankrupt employer.

UEFbankruptcy discharge injunctioncollateral sourcesubstantial shareholderLabor Code section 3717.1uninsured employerproof of claimautomatic staynondischargeable debtMunoz
References
Case No. ADJ3255503 (SDO0362975)
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

JOHN KOSICH vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous award, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The core issue is whether the applicant deputy sheriff's hypertension constitutes "heart trouble" for the purposes of a statutory presumption of industrial injury. The WCAB found the agreed medical evaluator's opinion regarding "heart trouble" unclear, as it did not definitively address the broad legal definition of the term. Therefore, the case requires further medical evaluation and deposition to clarify the applicant's cardiac condition in relation to the legal standard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffHeart Trouble PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.5Labor Code Section 4663(e)ApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorDr. Daniel J. BresslerHypertensionGERD
References
Case No. ADJ7047387
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

CECILIA ALAS vs. G & G APPAREL aka B FRIEND, INC., ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY Administered By ESIS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a defendant in a workers' compensation matter. The petitioner subsequently withdrew their petition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is dismissing the petition due to its withdrawal. The Board also admonishes the e-filing petitioner for failing to notify the Reconsideration Unit via email of the withdrawal, which led to wasted Board resources.

ADJ7047387Petition for Reconsiderationwithdrawndismissede-filerControl UnitReconsideration UnitEAMS Reference GuideElectronic FilingDWC website
References
Case No. ADJ7026308
Regular
Apr 01, 2011

CARLOS HERRERA vs. OBSTRO HERMITAGE, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board disqualified both the applicant's former counsel, Law Office of Lionel E. Giron, and the defendant's counsel, Tobin-Lucks, due to a conflict of interest. Applicant's attorney, Heather Brandt, failed to obtain informed written consent from her client before seeking and accepting employment with Tobin-Lucks, who represented the opposing party. Sanctions of $250 were imposed on William K. Calderon and the Law Office of Lionel E. Giron for this misconduct. The prior WCJ decision was rescinded, and the case was returned for a new trial with new counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDecision After Reconsiderationdisqualificationsanctionslabor code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561industrial injurylow backheadneck
References
Case No. ADJ1455856
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ vs. SPIESS CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding of 79% permanent disability. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions regarding diminished future earning capacity unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Board amended the award to reflect 37% permanent disability based on a prior stipulation, and removed any apportionment to non-industrial factors due to lack of substantial medical evidence from the defendant.

WCABSpiess ConstructionState Compensation Insurance FundGuillermo HernandezADJ1455856GRO 0032468ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC
References
Case No. ADJ3856430 (LAO 0853077)
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

XIAO BIN ZHOU vs. EASTCOM, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses Xiao Bin Zhou's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The dismissal is based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the reconsideration request. The original decision dates were August 11, 2010, and/or November 1, 2010.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawnDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCase No. ADJ3856430LAO 0853077Xiao Bin ZhouEastcom Inc.Employers Compensation Insurance CompanyAugust 11 2010
References
Case No. ADJ8190306
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

Silvestre Sanchez vs. Robert E. Town, Allied Insurance, A Nationwide Company

This case concerns whether an injured worker, Silvestre Sanchez, was an employee of Robert E. Town for workers' compensation purposes. The Board granted reconsideration to reverse the WCJ's finding of employment. The primary issue was whether Sanchez met the 52-hour work requirement within the 90 days preceding injury under Labor Code section 3352(h), which excludes certain residential employees. The Board found that based on conflicting testimony regarding a second payment, the applicant did not prove he worked over 52 hours, thus excluding him from coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSilvestre SanchezRobert E. TownAllied InsuranceLabor Code section 3352(h)excluded employeeresidential employee90-day perioddate of injuryFindings of Fact
References
Case No. ADJ8235335 ADJ10301846
Regular
Dec 23, 2019

JACK KESSLER vs. E&J GALLO WINERY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by E&J Gallo Winery that was dismissed as untimely. The petition was filed on October 28, 2019, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline for filing after the WCJ's September 30, 2019 decision. The Appeals Board emphasized that filing proof of mailing within the deadline is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board. Furthermore, the Board noted that the same issues raised had been previously addressed, warranting potential sanctions for frivolous conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitMailing vs. FilingWCJ DecisionSanctionsFrivolous ConductReconsideration DenialAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ1034130 (SAC 0249097)
Regular
Nov 04, 2014

RUSSELL CALDWELL vs. ROY E. LAY TRUCKING, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Russell Caldwell concerning a workers' compensation claim against Roy E. Lay Trucking. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's (WCJ) report. Adopting the WCJ's report and recommendation, the WCAB dismissed Caldwell's petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedRoy E. Lay TruckingSedgwick CMSADJ1034130SAC 0249097Russell Caldwell
References
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
Showing 1-10 of 901 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