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. ADJ2227581
Regular
May 29, 2012

OMAR REJAS vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORE

The applicant sought reconsideration of an amended award that increased the EDD lien payment rate. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely. The Board found the amendment was a clerical correction, not a substantial change, and therefore the reconsideration period ran from the original award date. Consequently, the applicant's petition was filed outside the statutory 20-day limit.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ222758199 CENTS ONLY STORESEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESAMENDED FINDINGS AND AWARDEMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTINDUSTRIAL INJURYPERMANENT DISABILITYAGREED MEDICAL EVALUATORNONINDUSTRIAL FACTORS
References
Case No. ADJ11407589
Regular
Jun 25, 2019

RICARDO PENA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's assault in the employer's unlit parking lot arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the assault was random and not personal, thus not barring compensation. The applicant was injured shortly after clocking out, and the employer's premises, including the dark parking lot, created a zone of risk. The Board deferred to the judge's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRicardo Pena99 Cents Only StoresBroadspire ServicesADJ11407589Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJInjury arising out of and in the course of employmentEmployer's parking lot
References
Case No. ADJ6968776
Regular
Apr 29, 2013

MARTHA IBARRA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, INC.

This case involves Martha Ibarra's cumulative trauma injury claim against 99 Cents Only Stores. The defendant sought to bar the claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that while the specific condition of prior medical records for the cumulative trauma injury was not met, the injury date being subsequent to notice of termination, as defined by Labor Code section 5412, satisfied the exception under section 3600(a)(10)(D). The Board amended the Findings of Fact to reflect this, affirmed the finding of injury to the upper extremities and spine, and returned the case for further proceedings, while deferring the issue of psychological injury.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3208.3(e)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCumulative Trauma InjuryUpper ExtremitiesSpinePsycheAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
References
Case No. ADJ19199519; ADJ19199522
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

LAURA RODRIGUEZ vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, SELF-INSURER'S SECURITY FUND

The Self-Insurers' Security Fund (SISF) petitioned for reconsideration or removal of a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order denying its joinder in a case involving injured applicant Laura Rodriguez and the bankrupt 99 Cents Only Stores. The WCJ had ruled that SISF, having assumed the insolvent employer's liabilities, only needed to file a notice of change in administrator, not a joinder petition. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was not final, but granted the petition for removal. As its Decision After Removal, the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's December 2, 2024 order, finding due process violations due to the summary denial without a hearing, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Self-Insurers' Security Fundjoinderremovalreconsiderationinsolvent self-insurerliquidationadministrative law judgeorderdue processsubstantial evidence
References
Case No. ADJ976410 (SDO 0364068)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

DIANNA BALDWIN vs. ROSS STORES, INC.

This case before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board involves Dianna Baldwin (Applicant) and Ross Stores, Inc. (Defendant). The Board has issued an order dismissing the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal is based on the Board's review of the record and incorporates the reasons provided in the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation.

Petition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoss StoresInc.Dianna BaldwinCase No. ADJ976410SDO 0364068
References
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ3521523 (WCK 0322592), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
May 16, 2014

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Pamela Zeilstra against Target Stores and Sedgwick CMS. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely and not filed from a final order, as required by Labor Code section 5900. The Board clarified that interlocutory procedural orders, which do not determine substantive rights, are not subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ10892681, ADJ10892685
Regular
Sep 26, 2018

ISABEL VALDEZ vs. ROSS STORES, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a withdrawn Petition for Reconsideration filed by an unnamed petitioner in the matter of Isabel Valdez v. Ross Stores, Inc. and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition as a result of its withdrawal. No substantive legal issues were decided as the matter was resolved by the petitioner's action. The Board's order is dated September 26, 2018.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawnDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoss StoresArch Insurance CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ10892681ADJ10892685San Diego District Office
References
Case No. ADJ8398907
Regular
Jun 06, 2014

RICARDO GARCIA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding that the record was insufficient to determine key issues, including permanent disability. The Board granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken because the WCJ's order was not a final determination and the applicant bears the burden of proof for the disputed issues. The Board mandates a decision based on the existing evidence, noting the applicant's failure to pursue medical evaluations or provide testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalWCJFindingsOccupationEarningsPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ6938398 ADJ6938554
Regular
Mar 13, 2012

JOSEFINA CASTANEDA vs. 99 CENT ONLY STORES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision to deny the applicant's claim for industrial injury. This denial was based on the applicant's failure to disclose a prior significant injury and subsequent compromise and release agreement, which rendered her medical reports unsubstantial evidence. The Board found the applicant's testimony regarding her current injury was not credible and she failed to meet her burden of proof for injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The court deferred to the WCJ's credibility findings, citing relevant case law.

AOE-COEsubstantial evidencecredibility findingHegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Releaseinadequate medical historieserroneous medical reportsdeveloped the record
References
Case No. ADJ6800080
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

PINA ALICIA RODRIGUEZ vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

The WCAB granted reconsideration to clarify evidentiary issues regarding the applicant's industrial injury. The primary issues to be developed are whether the treating physician was within a valid Medical Provider Network (MPN) or if proper notice was given, and whether the physician's opinions constitute substantial evidence given an inadequate medical history. Additionally, the WCAB requires further development of the record regarding the applicant's refusal of modified work and conflicting testimony about her voluntary resignation, which impacts temporary disability entitlement.

MPN noticeself-procured medical treatmenttemporary disabilitysubstantial medical evidencequalified medical evaluatorconcurrent employmentnon-industrial injurymodified workdeposition testimonytrial testimony
References
Showing 1-10 of 254 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