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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Penta v. Related Companies

Vincenzo Penta, a carpenter, was injured when struck by a crane hook on the 17th floor of a building under construction. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code regulations 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and 23-8.2 (c) (3). The Supreme Court initially found a question of fact regarding 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i), but the Appellate Division determined this regulation was inapplicable as a crane hook is not a 'moving part' requiring guards. The court agreed that 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (c) (3) was not applicable since the crane was not hoisting a load at the time of the accident. However, the Supreme Court properly denied dismissal of the common-law negligence claim under Labor Law § 200, as defendants failed to establish prima facie that they did not supervise or control the crane's operation. The order was modified to grant dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentCrane InjuryIndustrial Code ViolationsLabor Law Section 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
10
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
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. ADJ2547747 (POM 0221083)
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

EDUARDO VALENCIA vs. SAMICK MUSIC CORPORATION, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The petition was deficient as it was unsigned, unverified, and lacked proof of service on all parties. These defects violate Labor Code section 5902 and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10850. Even if the petition had been procedurally sound, the WCAB indicated it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseFuture Treatment LiabilityUnsigned PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10850
References
4
Case No. ADJ2946461 (OAK 0285115)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

LUCIO AGUIRRE vs. PIONEER PACKING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dr. Christopher Vaughan's petition for reconsideration. The petition failed to meet the statutory requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and California Code of Regulations title 8, section 10846. Specifically, the petition lacked specific contentions of error, references to the case record, and discussion of legal principles. As a result, the WCAB found the petition to be skeletal and therefore dismissed it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLien claimantWCJLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 §10846Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Skeletal petitionDismissal
References
1
Case No. ADJ7160968
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KIM FICK vs. WAL MART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Kim Fick, against Walmart Associates, Inc. and American Home Assurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. Furthermore, the petition was deemed skeletal and insufficient under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10846. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and ordered its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Skeletal PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10846DismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJApplicantDefendants
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decaire v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

A worker was injured at a construction site when a crane inadvertently dropped an I-beam on him after it had been initially unloaded. The plaintiff alleged a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (2) (i). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the cited Industrial Code regulation inapplicable as the accident occurred after the hoisting operation was complete. The court concluded that compliance with the regulation would not have prevented the accident, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Construction LawWorkers CompensationPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawIndustrial CodeCrane AccidentI-beamWorkplace SafetyProximate Cause
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,830 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