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. ADJ7103630
Regular
May 21, 2012

DENISE SANCHES vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves Denise Sanches' workers' compensation claim against the County of Sacramento. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sanches' Petition for Removal as untimely. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on March 8, 2012, which was more than the allowed 25 days after the February 13, 2012, decision. This delay violated the time limits prescribed by 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1013.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDecision DateFiling Date25 Days20 Days8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Served by MailDismissed
References
0
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ7535016, ADJ7536297, ADJ8099855
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

DAVID MURILLO-RAMOS vs. NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal is based on two procedural defects: the petition was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902, and there was no proof of proper service under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10565(d). The Board cites prior case law supporting dismissal for these types of violations. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Murillo-Ramos against National Retail Transportation and Travelers Insurance is formally rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code section 5902Proof of ServiceCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10565(d)WCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ3218661 (OAK 0339889)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHANCE ROLLINS vs. JOHN MARTIN STABLES, INC.; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE administered by AIG, CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ's ruling was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and denied the applicant's request for a neurology consultation under Labor Code §4601(a). The matter was returned to the trial level with instructions to issue an order for a new QME panel in neurology, as Dr. Jamasbi's request for a consultative neurological evaluation constituted good cause for a new panel under 8 Cal. Code Regs. §31.7. Attorney fees for the ex parte communication were upheld.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code 4601(a)Labor Code 4062.3QMEAgreed Medical EvaluatorNeurological ConsultMedical DirectorSpecialty Panel
References
0
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ4539662 (LBO 0266945)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

RAUL ANAYA vs. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS; CIGA c/o CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES for FREMONT INDEMNITY in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a venue change order. However, treating the petition as a request for removal, the WCAB granted removal and rescinded the order. The WCAB found that the defendant improperly sought a venue change to consolidate cases, as consolidation requires following specific procedures outlined in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10260(b).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5(c)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10410Adjudication Case NumberPWCJStipulated AwardContribution Proceeding
References
14
Case No. ADJ7048367
Regular
May 24, 2016

BLANCA CANTU vs. NATIONAL STEEL & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Disqualification against the defendant, National Steel & Shipbuilding Company. This dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was not submitted until February 24, 2016, after multiple continuances of the trial date since March 2015. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendations, which found the petition untimely under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10452. Even if the petition had not been untimely, the Board indicated it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJtimelinessuntimelinessMandatory Settlement Conferencecontinuancesupplemental petitionCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10848
References
0
Case No. ADJ1805160
Regular
Aug 10, 2010

RAUL GARCIA vs. BRISTOLITE SKYLIGHTS, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted removal to clarify the WCJ's order regarding the production of medical reports. The Board amended the order to require defendants to provide all medical reports in their possession, not just those they intended to rely upon, per 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 10608. The Board also struck the provision requiring the lien claimant to prove interpreter market rates, as this issue was not properly before the WCJ. Finally, the Board found no evidence of bias by the WCJ despite the lien claimant's assertions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalDecision After RemovalLien ClaimantMedical ReportsInterpreter FeesMarket RateBiasJudicial NoticeWCJ
References
16
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
1
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,285 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