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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ19479057
Regular
Aug 26, 2025

GERALD TORRES vs. PRO DEO FOUNDATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant, Pro Deo Foundation and State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision, which found Gerald Torres to be an employee of Pro Deo Foundation. Defendant contended Torres was a volunteer or independent contractor and should be judicially estopped from claiming workers' compensation due to a prior settlement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of employment, emphasizing the WCJ's credibility determinations and concluding that the defendant failed to satisfy the 'ABC' test for independent contractor status. The Board timely acted on and subsequently denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPro Deo FoundationState Compensation Insurance FundGerald TorresADJ19479057Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersEmployee StatusVolunteerIndependent Contractor
References
Case No. ADJ13444464
Regular
Jul 03, 2025

LUIS ARNULFO BERMEO CUEVA vs. EMIL BENJAMIN ARAUJO GALVEZ, JOSE CARPIO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant's attorney. The petition challenged a prior Findings and Order from February 24, 2015, which found no employment relationship between the deceased applicant, Luis Arnulfo Bermeo Cueva, and the alleged employers, King Auto Sales or Rex Auto Sales. The Board affirmed the trial judge's finding, applying the 'ABC' test for employment, concluding that the applicant was an independent contractor based on evidence he rented space, used his own tools, and exercised control over his work, and that mechanical work was outside the usual course of the hiring entities' business.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemTransmission of CaseReport and RecommendationFindings and OrderEmploymentIndependent ContractorABC Test
References
Case No. ADJ16790828
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

Surinder Singh vs. S Line Transportation, Ajaib Singh Kahlon, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

This case concerns Surinder Singh's petition for reconsideration regarding a WCJ's finding that he was not an employee of S Line Transportation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's July 15, 2025 decision, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the record to be inadequate and inconsistent, citing issues with unauthenticated evidence, unclarified bank statements indicating payments for "yard security guard" services, and the late joinder of Ajaib Singh Kahlon as a defendant. Emphasizing due process, the Board instructed that the record be further developed and the employment status be re-evaluated using the "ABC test" as codified in Labor Code section 2775.

Employment statusIndependent contractorSecurity guardPort of OaklandYard operationsAsylum claimLoan repaymentSubstantial evidenceAdmitted evidenceDeveloping the record
References
Case No. ADJ10551600
Regular
Mar 02, 2018

JOSE TORRES vs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the primary treating physician's opinion, which formed the basis of the award, was not supported by substantial evidence. The physician's impairment ratings for the applicant's neck and back were based on outdated strength testing results from 1.5 years prior to his report and conflicted with more recent findings. The Board found the physician's examination inadequate, thus rescinding the award and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award OpinionPermanent Disability RatingSubstantial EvidencePrimary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorJamar TestingOutdated Testing ResultsInadequate Examination
References
Case No. FRE 0191984
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

MARIA ROMERO vs. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a dispute over lien claimant Schroeder Chiropractic North's payment for services rendered to applicant Maria Romero. Both the defendant and the lien claimant petitioned for reconsideration of an amended findings and award. The Board granted reconsideration, amending the award to allow payment for chiropractic treatment from January 6, 2005, to October 18, 2006, while disallowing payment for specific services like manual muscle testing and radiography.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantChiropractic TreatmentManual Muscle TestingRadiography TestsOrthoticsKnee BraceQualified Medical EvaluatorStipulations
References
Case No. ADJ10153886
Regular
Apr 23, 2018

MICHAEL BARROS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a sheriff's investigator, injured his right knee while jogging off-duty. The employer, County of Riverside Sheriff's Department, denied the claim, asserting it was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as an off-duty recreational activity. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, ruling the injury was not compensable because the applicant failed to demonstrate his subjective belief that jogging was objectively reasonable or required by his employment. General employer preferences for physical fitness or its mention in performance evaluations, without specific directives or testing, are insufficient to overcome the statutory bar.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)AOE/COEoff-duty recreational activitysubjective beliefobjectively reasonableEzzy testvocational expectationphysical fitness requirementsperformance evaluationssubstantial nexus
References
Case No. ADJ11676994
Regular
Aug 28, 2019

CLIFFORD MOORHOUSE vs. ALISAL GUEST RANCH, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

This case concerns the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding the applicant an employee. The applicant, a farrier, claimed cumulative industrial injury while working for the defendant ranch. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant was an employee under the *Borello* standard. The Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden to prove independent contractor status, citing factors like the defendant's control over the work and the applicant's lack of investment. The Board also clarified that the *Dynamex* ABC test, while applicable to wage orders, does not supersede the *Borello* standard for workers' compensation employment determinations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClifford MoorhouseAlisal Guest RanchTravelers Diamond Barfinding of fact and awardpresumption of employmentsubstantial evidenceS. G. Borello & Sonsindependent contractorright to control
References
Case No. ADJ744923 (ANA 0385182)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

CHARLES BUFFINGTON III vs. FACTORY MUTUAL, INFRARED TESTING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Factory Mutual seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision finding Liberty Mutual provided coverage for Infrared Testing, Inc. during the applicant's injury period. Factory admits it sold its interest in Infrared before the cumulative injury period, arguing Liberty's coverage stipulation was a mistake. The Board dismissed Factory's petition, finding Factory lacks standing as it had no interest in the employer after August 2, 2000. The Board also indicated it would have denied the petition on the merits due to Liberty's stipulation and the elapsed premium collection period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersStipulationCoverage disputeMistake in coverageSale of interestUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundStandingAggrieved party
References
Case No. LAO 0829008
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

CHRISTINA D. SALCEDO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order denying invasive diagnostic tests was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal due to potential due process issues and the need to fully develop the record on causation. The decision deferred the issue of diagnostic tests, affirming other aspects of the WCJ's order and returning the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalDiagnostic TestsInvasiveCompelUrological InjuryCompensable ConsequenceDue ProcessMedical Proof
References
Showing 1-10 of 152 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