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. ADJ7700512
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

John E. Skaff vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision denying a police officer's claim for prostate cancer. The applicant sought an adverse inference against the City of Stockton for failing to produce Hazard Awareness Recognition Program (HARP) forms allegedly detailing chemical exposures during methamphetamine lab investigations. The Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case for further development of the record. This is to determine whether the City had a duty to retain and produce the HARP forms, and if the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in seeking them. The Board will then allow the WCJ to decide if an adverse inference is warranted and issue a new decision.

Hazard Awareness Recognition ProgramHARP formsadverse inferenceindustrial causationprostate cancerchemical exposuremethamphetamine labspolice officerQualified Medical ExaminerDr. Juan Cesar Larach
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ1439090 (LAO 0861676) ADJ2937051 (LAO 0866354)
Regular
Jul 12, 2013

LATONIA CROCKOM vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kaiser Foundation Hospital's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's decision was an interlocutory evidentiary ruling, not a final order determining substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal. It affirmed the WCJ's broad authority over discovery, including the ability to draw adverse inferences from an applicant's failure to respond to discovery. Therefore, the defendant's request for reconsideration and removal was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionEvidentiary RulingDiscovery ProcessAdverse InferenceLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5701
References
Case No. ADJ3746488
Regular
Oct 07, 2010

JAVIER CHAVEZ vs. CRESCENT TRUCK LINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision which found a lien claimant to be an assignee, thus not a covered claim for CIGA. The Board found the WCJ erred in drawing an adverse inference of assignment without sufficient evidence. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on whether the lien was legally assigned. The Board clarified that the nature of the assignment (absolute vs. for representation) is crucial to determining CIGA's liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Recovery ServicesNorwalk OrthopedicCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAadverse inferenceassigneelegal assignmentcovered claimexhibition exclusion
References
Case No. ADJ9085589
Regular
Jun 12, 2015

CLAUDIA MARTINEZ vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORP. dba CARL'S JR, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a dismissal order, finding the applicant's case should not have been dismissed due to her absence from trial. The WCAB clarified that while an applicant's testimony may be necessary, their mere failure to appear when represented by counsel does not automatically permit dismissal. Instead, the defendant must follow proper procedures to compel the applicant's attendance, or the WCJ should consider sanctions or an adverse inference. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCAB Rule 10562Petition for ReconsiderationSet Aside DismissalApplicant Failure to AppearCounsel PresenceWCJ ErrorNotice of Intention to DismissOrder of DismissalGood Cause to ReopenError of Law
References
Case No. ADJ8223604
Regular
Nov 14, 2013

DEEANNA FOBBS vs. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dee Anna Fobbs' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report and recommendations, finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury to her right knee arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and concluded that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported the WCJ's decision. Applicant's claims of impeachment errors, improper denial of testimony, and adverse inference for destroyed evidence were rejected.

DEEANNA FOBBSUC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTERSEDGWICK CMSPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDWCJ REPORTGARZA V. WORKMEN'S COMP. APPEALS BD.WITNESS STATEMENTSIMPEACHMENTADMISSIBILITY
References
Case No. ADJ8527201 (MF) ADJ8527245
Regular
Dec 27, 2016

GUSTAVO VALDOVINOS vs. COLORMAX INDUSTRIES INC, AIG SAN DIEGO on behalf of GRANITE STATE INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Gustavo Valdovinos' petition for reconsideration of a decision that found he failed to prove a cumulative trauma injury. Applicant argued for an adverse inference due to the destruction of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) by the employer. The Board found no violation of duty to retain MSDS under California or federal law, especially since the request was made years after employment ended. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide medical evidence linking his claimed injuries to the chemicals he recalled using.

WCABColormax IndustriesAIG San DiegoGranite State InsuranceGustavo Valdovinoscumulative traumaMaterial Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)adverse inferenceindustrial chemicalssolvents
References
Case No. 1
Regular
Dec 28, 2009

MOISES MEDINA vs. CONTINENTAL PROCESSING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PAULA INSURANCE, INTERCARE

The WCJ's inference that the lien was assigned because claimant failed before trial to affirmatively declare the status of the lien as required by Board Rule 10550(d) was not unreasonable. However, an inference is simply that, a kind of presumption that must be analyzed in light of the entire evidentiary record. Here, other evidence calls the inference into question. The case is returned to the trial level for development of the record.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAinsolvencycovered claimsassigneeadverse inferenceBoard Rule 10550(d)lien claimsubstantial justice
References
Case No. ADJ4237598 (LAO 0866879), ADJ2618117 (VNO 0540849)
Regular
Jul 19, 2012

CHRIS JOHN MUNOZ vs. INFINITY METALS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed Perona Langer's petition for reconsideration because it was a successive petition following a prior dismissal, and it was also untimely filed. The Board noted that Perona Langer failed to serve its initial petition on all adverse parties, leading to the first dismissal. Furthermore, even if the petition were timely and not successive, the Board found Perona Langer's argument for a larger fee share unpersuasive, as the WCJ had reasonably allocated fees based on the results and effort of each prior counsel. The Board affirmed that a party cannot file a second petition for reconsideration after an adverse ruling; they must seek a writ of review in the Court of Appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalAttorneys' FeesLabor Code Section 4906(d)Proof of ServiceAdverse PartiesTimelinessWrit of ReviewSuccessive Petition
References
Case No. ADJ2186877 (VNO 0522117)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JODY LATOUF vs. STUMBAUGH & ASSOCIATES, INC., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY as administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, LTD., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied TIG Specialty Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. TIG claimed its policy only covered non-carpenter employees at the LAUSD site. However, TIG failed to present the policy as evidence at either arbitration hearing. Therefore, the Board inferred the policy did cover the applicant's employment, upholding the arbitrator's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportSite-Specific PolicyEvidenceCoverage IssueInferenceTIG Specialty Insurance CompanyStumbaugh & AssociatesInc.
References
Showing 1-10 of 393 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