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. ADJ6627019
Regular
May 06, 2013

SANDRA BERKENSTOCK vs. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order denying their request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in psychiatry/psychology. The applicant sustained industrial injuries including to her psyche. The administrative law judge denied the replacement panel because the QME's report was eventually received. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition. The Board ruled that the denial of a replacement QME panel is an interim, procedural order not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a).

WCABAgilent TechnologiesADJ6627019Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpsychiatrypsychologyFlorence Thomas-RiddleLabor Code section 139.2(j)(1)(A)
References
Case No. ADJ10030458
Regular
Mar 12, 2019

Rachel Osorio vs. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

This case involves applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the applicant's request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel, finding that the original QME's failure to serve the applicant directly with his report, despite serving her attorney, constituted substantial compliance. The Board reasoned that the applicant was not significantly prejudiced as she retained rights for further discovery and that a replacement panel was not warranted. Ultimately, the WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior order.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAgilent TechnologiesInc.Sedgwick Claims Management ServicesRachel OsorioFindings and OrderInjury AOE/COEBilateral Hands and WristsQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial Compliance
References
Case No. ADJ2834514
Regular
Oct 21, 2011

VAIOS KALOMIROS vs. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (aka VARIAN, INC.)

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is necessary for a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision. Further proceedings may be determined as appropriate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgilent TechnologiesSpecialty Risk PleasantonVaios KalomirosStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners
References
Case No. ADJ2834514 (RDG 0121099)
Regular
Dec 09, 2011

VAJOS KALOMIROS vs. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (aka VARIAN, INC.) permissibly self-insured, SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON

The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's workers' compensation claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board determined the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing that the applicant knew or should have known his pulmonary condition was work-related. Crucially, the applicant lacked medical confirmation of causation, and the WCJ's reliance on an anonymous letter and a consultation with an out-of-state attorney was deemed insufficient evidence. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings on the merits.

Statute of LimitationsPulmonary diseaseCumulative injuryDate of injuryLabor Code section 5412Labor Code section 5405Actual knowledgeConstructive knowledgeMedical confirmationOccupational disease
References
Case No. ADJ1738288 (STK 0190763) ADJ2794711 (STK 0190762) ADJ1287276 (STK 0190764) ADJ1593256 (STK 0190765) ADJ2352943 (STK 0190766)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

GLORIA VANOVER-LOPEZ vs. WESTLAND TECHNOLOGY and CIGA and ITS SERVICING FACILITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, for PNIC IN LIQUIDATION

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Westland Technology and its insurers, regarding a previous decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. The WCAB determined that reconsideration is necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners in San Francisco.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGLORIA VANOVER-LOPEZWESTLAND TECHNOLOGYCIGAPNIC IN LIQUIDATIONINTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICESSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISION
References
Case No. ADJ8231983
Regular
May 08, 2014

RANDALL SCHWALM vs. CHANNEL TECHNOLOGIES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant Channel Technologies Inc. filed a Petition for Removal regarding an Order to Appear issued by the judge. However, the defendant subsequently withdrew this petition. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as requested.

Petition for RemovalOrder to AppearWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedWithdrawnDefendantApplicantChannel Technologies Inc.State Compensation Insurance Fund
References
Case No. ADJ1982202
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

NOEL RIVERA vs. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INC., CHUBB FEDERAL INSURANCE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a claim by Noel Rivera against Sensient Technologies Corporation. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review and found no reasonable basis for it, remanding the case for supplemental attorney fees. A stipulation between the parties was reached whereby the defendant agreed to pay $3,500.00 for these supplemental attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board approved this stipulation as reasonable.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewDenial of PetitionRemittiturStipulationLump SumT. Mae YoshidaMullen & FilippiWCAB
References
Case No. ADJ854108 (OAK 0281808)
Regular
Oct 07, 2008

PATRICIA BECK vs. INTEGRATED DEVICES TECHNOLOGY, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, RANDSTAND, CIGA ON BEHALF OF LEGION INSURANCE IN LIQUIDATION, BROADSPIRE

This case involves an applicant who sustained an industrial injury to her left thumb, hand, and wrist while employed by both a general employer (Randstand) and a special employer (Integrated Devices Technology, IDT). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to correct minor errors in the original Findings and Award, specifically regarding citations to the Insurance Code and the identification of the general employer. The WCAB affirmed the original decision that IDT's insurer, Safety National Casualty Corporation, constitutes "other insurance," thereby relieving CIGA of liability for the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIntegrated Devices TechnologySafety National Casualty CorporationMatrix Absence ManagementRandstandCIGALegion InsuranceBroadspirespecial employergeneral employer
References
Case No. ADJ3086148 (AHM0123696) ADJ749570 (AHM0123697)
Regular
Jan 16, 2009

NICOLAE FILIP vs. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on industrial injury but reversed the WCJ's decision regarding violations of Labor Code sections 132a and 4553, finding insufficient evidence to support the violations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardExide TechnologiesZurich American InsuranceLabor Code section 4553Labor Code section 132aSerious and Willful MisconductDiscriminationReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryNeck Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3086148 (AHM 0123696) ADJ749570 (AHM 0123697)
Regular
Mar 19, 2009

NICOLAE FILIP vs. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

Applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision that denied claims of serious and willful misconduct and discrimination under Labor Code sections 4553 and 132a. The applicant alleged the employer wrongfully assigned dangerous tasks and retaliated for reporting health concerns. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the arguments and the existing record, incorporating their previous reasoning. Ultimately, the Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior decision that the employer did not violate the cited Labor Code sections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardExide TechnologiesZurich American InsuranceNicolae FilipLabor Code section 4553Labor Code section 132aserious and willful misconductdiscriminationindustrial injuryneck injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 92 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