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. ADJ1 0544723
Regular
Feb 21, 2017

CARLOS BARRAZA AYON vs. GILL RANCH COMPANY, INC.; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Notice of Benefit Ineligibility regarding a Return to Work Supplement, which was denied due to untimely application. The applicant argued inadequate notice of their right to a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature, finding the Director's decision was not yet subject to review at the trial level. The matter was returned to the trial level to first determine the applicant's entitlement to an SJDV, as their underlying case settlement did not address this issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReturn to Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherNotice of Benefit IneligibilityPetition for ReconsiderationPrematureTrial LevelAdjudicate EntitlementCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5900(a)
References
Case No. ADJ1922528 (AHM 0096025) ADJ1909758 (AHM 0129156)
Regular
Mar 23, 2009

Rafael Rivas vs. STEFAN MERLI PLASTERING CO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED GLENDALE

In this case, the applicant sought vocational rehabilitation benefits over five years after his injury, which the judge initially denied based on the statute of limitations. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the denial, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that because there was no prior adjudication of the applicant's right to vocational rehabilitation and he remained temporarily disabled without a permanent disability finding, his request could still be considered under Labor Code Section 5405.5. This decision emphasizes that jurisdiction for vocational rehabilitation can extend beyond five years from the injury date when entitlement hasn't been previously determined.

Vocational rehabilitation benefitsStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 5410Labor Code section 5405.5Date of injuryReinstatementJurisdictionPermanent disabilityTemporary total disabilityAgreed Medical Examiners
References
Case No. OAK 0325086
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

KENNETH GMEINER vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the employer's petition for reconsideration as premature, but granted removal to address the judge's improper deferral of a permanent disability decision. The judge had vacated submission, citing uncertainty about the validity of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) based on a pending case. The Board ruled that deferring a decision on permanent disability due to an unresolved legal issue concerning the PDRS's validity prejudiced the parties and violated the mandate for expeditious adjudication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and Order Vacating SubmissionPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleSB 899Boughner v. CompUSAInc.Costa v. HardyAdministrative Director
References
Case No. ADJ1378934 (VNO 0542019), ADJ7423562
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

VICTORIA BARNETT vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar. The WCJ improperly deferred the issue of home health care entitlement and reimbursement, which Applicant contended SB 863 did not preclude. The Board remanded the case for an expedited hearing to determine entitlement to home health care, whether SB 863 applies, and to resolve lien reimbursement issues afterward.

Petition for RemovalSB 863home health careexpedited hearingLabor Code § 4610applicant's entitlementretroactive reimbursementstipulated awardpetition to reopenApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
Case No. ADJ10183604
Regular
Feb 13, 2019

TRACY HOVLAND vs. DISPENSING DYNAMICS INTERNATIONAL, STAFFING NETWORK LLC, AEROTEK, ALLEGIS GROUP, INC., EMPLOYCO USA, THE HARTFORD SYRACUSE, ESIS CHATSWORTH, LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING BOA RATON, SEDGWICK CIGA GLENDALE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY ENCINO, AMTRUST CONCORD, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior orders denying reimbursement for CIGA and dismissal for Hartford. The WCAB clarified that CIGA, unlike other insurers, is entitled to reimbursement rather than just contribution from solvent insurers when handling claims due to insurer insolvency. The Board also found Hartford's dismissal petition premature, as the underlying workers' compensation claim still requires adjudication. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to resolve the underlying claim and related indemnity issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReimbursementPetition for ContributionCumulative Trauma PeriodJoint and Several LiabilityCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Third-Party AdministratorInsurer JoinderPetition for Dismissal
References
Case No. ADJ7670126; ADJ7670124; ADJ8134230; ADJ8134232
Regular
May 24, 2012

WANDA MCNAIR vs. CITY OF INGLEWOOD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, reversing a prior order that had taken the case off calendar. The Board found that the defendant had not acted with due diligence in preparing its case, and the applicant argued this would cause unreasonable delay in adjudicating her benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation to return the matters to the trial level due to unresolved factual issues. The case is now scheduled for a status conference to determine necessary further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDue DiligenceUnreasonable DelayAdjudicate EntitlementProcedural HistoryUnresolved Factual IssuesTrial LevelStatus ConferenceRescind Order
References
Case No. ADJ1504028 (AHM 0081465); ADJ603748 (AHM 0081464)
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

JENNIFER DICORATO vs. BLOOMFIELD BAKERY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The case involves a petition for removal filed by lien claimant Stuart Silverman, M.D., challenging an order by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ's order permitted the defendant to substitute a bill review expert witness and allow remote testimony. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report, dismissed the petition. The Board concluded that the issue was not yet ripe for adjudication as no final order or decision regarding the expert witness substitution or remote testimony had been issued by the WCJ. The decision further noted the importance of a complete record and admonished the lien claimant's representative, Dan Escamilla, for misrepresenting facts in the verified petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantSubstitution of Expert WitnessRemote TestimonyWCJ DecisionNot Ripe for AdjudicationPretrial Conference StatementSubstantial EvidenceAdmitted EvidenceSanctions
References
Case No. ADJ14336798
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

NADESH MOFOR vs. CA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND MCO, STATE EMPLOYEES SACRAMENTO

Defendant sought reconsideration of a July 23, 2025 Finding of Fact and Award (F&A) concerning applicant Nadesh Mofor's permanent disability for headaches and a temporary total disability (TTD) overpayment credit. Defendant contended its due process rights were violated due to the F&A issuing before its post-trial brief was considered, that the medical evidence for headaches was insubstantial, and that it was entitled to TTD overpayment credit. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to correct the stipulated period of temporary disability from April 11, 2022, to June 2, 2022, and otherwise affirmed the F&A, concluding that the medical evidence for headaches was substantial and the denial of TTD overpayment credit was within the WCJ's discretion.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDNADESH MOFORCA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJUDICATION NUMBERSOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDING OF FACT AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTTEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY OVERPAYMENT
References
Case No. ADJ13831018
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

Toshi Kuwata vs. Implant Direct, LLC, Ace American Insurance Company, Sedgwick CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Employment Development Department's (EDD) petition for reconsideration. The Board found the EDD was not aggrieved because its lien claim was not adjudicated and the award for temporary disability expressly excluded periods for which the EDD could assert a credit. The EDD's lien can still be adjudicated separately, and the defendants are advised to resolve the credit to avoid further interest.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationEmployment Development DepartmentAggrieved PartyLien ClaimantFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityEDD CreditUnemployment Insurance CodeStipulation
References
Case No. ADJ10069789 MF ADJ10069817 ADJ10069939
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

ANTHONY SMITH vs. TW TRANSPORTATION

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant was hired in California but signed an employment contract with a choice-of-law clause selecting Washington law and forum. The WCAB granted reconsideration, reversing the administrative law judge's prior order to adjudicate in Washington. The Board found that hiring in California is a sufficient connection to establish WCAB jurisdiction, superseding the choice-of-law clause due to California's strong public policy interest in workers' compensation claims. Therefore, the applicant's claims will be adjudicated in California.

WCABJurisdictionLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Contract of HireForum Selection ClauseChoice of Law ProvisionReconsiderationFindings of FactMcKinley v. Arizona CardinalsPalma
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,191 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