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. LAO 0786011
Regular
Nov 16, 2007

ISRAEL GALINDO (Deceased) vs. PDQ PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the County of Los Angeles' petition to set aside an order approving a compromise and release agreement. The County lacked standing because it was not a party to the agreement and therefore not directly aggrieved by the order. The Board clarified that the County may petition for reconsideration in the future if it is aggrieved by a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSuperior National Insurance CompanyliquidationCompromise and ReleaseGuardian ad LitemPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set Asideremovallack of mutual consideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ7620723
Regular
Aug 09, 2013

SERGIO CONTRERAS vs. WEST COAST PAINTING, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien for failure to pay a fee. The lien claimant argued it was exempt as its lien was previously resolved by stipulation and order. The defendant asserted the lien claimant was not aggrieved as the lien had been paid. Ultimately, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the lien claimant was not aggrieved, as its lien had been settled and paid.

Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationDismissalLien activation feeStipulation and OrderAggrievedVerified answerDue processStatutory time periodAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ4550304 (LBO 0307290)
Regular
Sep 25, 2008

ANTHONY SANKEY vs. LOVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration primarily because it was not properly served on the applicant and their attorney, violating due process rights. The Board also found the lien claimant was not yet aggrieved, as the stipulations did not resolve his lien, and jurisdiction was reserved for its adjustment. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failure to serve and for lack of standing as an aggrieved party at this stage.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien claimantStipulationsPermanent disabilityWithdrawal with prejudicePsyche/stress injuryAdverse effectUnbiased testimonyMedical evidenceTimely filed
References
3
Case No. ADJ7010013
Regular
Jun 28, 2010

PAMELA VAN ZANDT vs. NIKE, INC COLE-HAAN, OLD REPUBLIC ADMINISTERED BY ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an attorney's fee award. The defendant incorrectly claimed the issue of fees was not raised and that they were aggrieved by the award. The Board found the defendant was not aggrieved, as fees were payable from the applicant's benefits, and the issue was properly noted in the pre-trial statement. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on the defendant's counsel for filing a frivolous petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardExpedited HearingTemporary DisabilityAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5813SanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous Petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ3391443
Regular
Jul 15, 2010

SUSANA CASTELLANOS vs. ANTOJITOS MEXICANO VELOZ, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed SCIF's petition for reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement. SCIF argued the C&R incorrectly stated attorney's fees were $2,050 instead of $2,250 and that SCIF should hold the fees in trust. The Board found SCIF was not aggrieved by the fee amount, as it was a stakeholder with no interest in the $200 difference. Furthermore, the Board determined SCIF was not aggrieved by the lack of a trust order, as the representing attorney could manage the disbursement themselves.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeesState Compensation Insurance FundAdministrative Law JudgeAggrieved PartyDue ProcessLabor Code § 5909WCAB Policy and Procedure Manual
References
1
Case No. ADJ6645567
Regular
Mar 26, 2012

DARLENE BERKE vs. BLOOMINGDALES, MACYS CORPORATE SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over the disqualification of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Monosson, due to alleged ex parte communication initiated by the doctor regarding deposition fees. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying finding was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the disqualification, ruling that Dr. Monosson was not disqualified. The Board emphasized that Labor Code section 4062.3(f) and CCR, Title 8, Section 35(k) protect the aggrieved party's election rights, and here, the applicant, the aggrieved party, did not seek a new QME.

Panel Qualified Medical EvaluatorDisqualificationEx Parte CommunicationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062.3Aggrieved PartyMedical ReportsDeposition FeesPrepayment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Just Energy Texas I Corp. v. Texas Workforce Commission and Cedric Thomas

Just Energy Texas I Corp. appealed the dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and Cedric Thomas for lack of jurisdiction. Just Energy challenged the trial court's ruling that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The core issue revolved around whether Just Energy was 'aggrieved' by the TWC's decision reversing an initial denial of unemployment benefits to Thomas, thereby waiving TWC's sovereign immunity. The court concluded that Just Energy's potential future injuries, such as chargebacks or other claims, were not 'actual and immediate' losses required to be considered 'aggrieved' under the Texas Labor Code. Therefore, the Commission's sovereign immunity was not waived, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUnemployment BenefitsJudicial ReviewAggrieved PartySubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeAdministrative RemediesIndependent Contractor
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionary Workers' International Union of America, Local 429

This legal decision pertains to a motion that was granted and an appeal that was subsequently dismissed. The dismissal was predicated on the finding that the appellant was not considered an aggrieved party by the modification made at the Appellate Division, referencing CPLR 5601, subdivision [a], paragraph [iii]. Furthermore, the order specifies that the timeframe within which the appellant may pursue permission to appeal will be computed in accordance with the provisions of CPLR 5513, as per CPLR 5514, subdivision [a]. The decision highlights a procedural aspect of legal appeals, specifically addressing the criteria for an appellant to be considered "aggrieved." The court's action of granting the motion and dismissing the appeal underscores the importance of proper standing in appellate proceedings. This ruling impacts how future appeals are processed concerning modifications made at the Appellate Division. The explicit mention of CPLR sections indicates a reliance on specific procedural codes for determining both the appeal's viability and the subsequent calculation of time limits for further legal action.

MotionAppealDismissalCPLRAppellate ProcedureAggrieved PartyJurisdictionProcedural LawLegal StandingTime Limits
References
0
Case No. ADJ2566220 (SDO 0339958)
Regular
Oct 13, 2009

JOSE LEGAZPI vs. CASTEEN CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant's petition for removal is dismissed as moot because the defendant was not aggrieved by the Findings and Award and Order, which is final.

Petition for RemovalNotice of Intention to SubmitDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedConfidential CommunicationsWCJJudicial BiasFindings and AwardIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceOffer of Proof
References
2
Case No. LAO 0722567
Significant

Daniel Milbauer, Applicant vs. Erez Boostan, an individual and dba American Runner Attorney Service, uninsured; Uninsured Employers Fund

The Appeals Board dismisses the Uninsured Employers Fund's petition for reconsideration because UEF is not legally 'aggrieved' by the prior decision, the challenged procedures are not a 'final' order, and the petition is successive.

Uninsured Employers FundPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancActing Director of Industrial RelationsAdministrative Law JudgeSupplemental Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLegal Identity of EmployerAggrieved PartyFinal Order
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 228 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