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. ADJ6995425
Regular
Apr 27, 2012

SERGIO SANCHEZ vs. LIDA KOHANSAMEH, PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior ruling finding the applicant an employee of Lida Kohansameh. While agreeing the applicant was not an employee of Pacific Great West Construction, the Board remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial judge must now determine if the applicant is excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code sections 3351(d) and 3352(h), specifically regarding residential or casual employment and hours worked. This decision avoids a final determination on employment status and focuses on potential statutory exclusions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLida KohansamehPacific Specialty InsuranceTristar Risk ManagementSergio SanchezFindings and OrderEmployee statusPacific Great West ConstructionReport and RecommendationPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ2166029
Regular
Jul 07, 2010

HUMBERTO MACIAS vs. ECONOMY INN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant claimed injury while performing unlicensed construction work for the defendant. The Board adopted the judge's report, finding the applicant's testimony lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies. Furthermore, the work performed by the applicant did not meet the criteria for employment under Labor Code §3351(d) and §3352(h), thus excluding coverage.

WCABReconsideration DeniedAOE/COECredibility FindingUnlicensed ContractorLabor Code §3202.5Preponderance of EvidenceResidential Dwelling ExclusionLabor Code §3352(h)Business Entity
References
Case No. ADJ7703888
Regular
Feb 29, 2012

MARIA LOPEZ vs. LUIS AND DOLORES MORALES, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Maria Lopez's claim for workers' compensation benefits following an alleged injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's finding that Lopez was not credible regarding her work hours. Specifically, Lopez failed to demonstrate she worked the required 52 hours within the 90 days preceding her injury, thus excluding her from coverage under Labor Code § 3352(h).

Labor Code § 3352(h)Petition for ReconsiderationCredibility determinationResidential employeeMonetary requirementHousekeeperNinety-day periodFifty-two hoursDate of injuryPro per
References
Case No. ADJ6950787
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

JOSE BARRIENTOS vs. MARK GREENBERG, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the administrative law judge (WCJ) abused discretion by finding the applicant credible, specifically regarding the duration of employment to exclude him from employee status under Labor Code §3352(h). The WCJ adopted the report recommending denial, emphasizing applicant's credible testimony regarding hours worked and pay, and finding the defendant's testimony less reliable due to a lack of direct knowledge. The Board extended great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, affirming the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility findingLabor Code §3352(h)employee definitionconflicting testimonyobservational demeanorunreliable testimonyunrebutted testimony
References
Case No. ADJ9651181
Regular
Jun 15, 2018

TONY BLAINE vs. GWENDOLYN PHILLIPS, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tony Blaine's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which found Blaine was not an employee based on insufficient hours worked (14 hours) to meet the 52-hour threshold under Labor Code §3352(h). Furthermore, the ALJ found Blaine's testimony regarding his date of injury inconsistent with his prior statements to doctors and documentation filed with the Board, suggesting the injury may have occurred before his employment with the defendant. The petition was also deemed "skeletal" for lacking detailed arguments referencing the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeEmployee StatusWork Related InjuryLabor Code §3351(d)Labor Code §3352(h)Date of InjuryInconsistent TestimonyCredibility
References
Case No. ADJ7776766
Regular
Mar 22, 2012

ABELARDO MORALES vs. EVANGELINA NICHOLAS, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior award. The Board found the applicant was not an employee under Labor Code sections 3351(d) and 3352(h) because his work as a patio builder and roof repairer was considered incidental to the ownership and use of a dwelling, and he worked less than 52 hours for the homeowner. Therefore, the applicant was excluded from workers' compensation coverage.

Labor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)incidental to dwelling usehomeowner employee exclusioncasual or minor activityremodeling workresidential dwellingworkers' compensation schemePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
Case No. ADJ1511657
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

LESTER GUERRERO vs. DUANE WHITE, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Lester Guerrero was an employee of Duane White. The WCAB determined that Guerrero's drywall and painting work, performed for less than 52 hours, constituted activities incidental to the ownership, maintenance, and use of a dwelling. Therefore, Guerrero is excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)incidental to dwelling ownershipresidential remodelingcasual or minor activityhomeowner exclusionscope of employmentemployee statusfinding of fact
References
Case No. ADJ8172096
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

MARIA DEL SOCORRO MEDELLIN vs. ANNETTE ROJAS, FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant to be an employee based on credible testimony and medical records. The defendant contended the WCJ erred in finding employment, but the WCJ found the applicant met the hours requirement under Labor Code Section 3352(h). The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code Section 3352(h)housekeeperemploymentdate of injuryPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Petition
References
Case No. ADJ4543302 (LBO 0384577) ADJ4573415 (LBO 0384579)
Regular
Oct 31, 2008

SANDRA AREBALO vs. MELISSA & ARTUR SPOKOJNY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES c/o ALL STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior ruling. The Board found that the applicant's specific injury claim was barred by Labor Code section 3352(h) because she did not meet the minimum hours or earnings threshold for an employee. Additionally, the Board determined that the applicant's cumulative trauma claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as it was filed after notice of termination. Consequently, the applicant will take nothing from her claims.

Labor Code Section 3352(h)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensespecific injurycumulative traumahousekeeperbabysitterdate of injurydefinition of employeePetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ6521131
Regular
Aug 11, 2010

MARTIN REYES vs. GERALD & BOBBY HUNT (Homeowners), CAPITOL INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant injured while tree trimming for homeowners. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the original decision. The Board found that because the applicant was an unlicensed contractor performing work requiring a license, he is considered an employee as a matter of law under Labor Code section 2750.5. However, the applicant is still excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). Therefore, despite being an employee, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Labor Code section 2750.5Labor Code section 3352(h)unlicensed contractoremployee presumptionstatutory employerresidential dwellingtree trimmingBusiness and Professions Code section 7026.1Cedillo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.independent contractor
References
Showing 1-10 of 298 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