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. ADJ8059380
Regular
May 11, 2016

ALVARO ABARCA vs. REIMER FARMS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a dispute over attorney's fees where applicant's attorney, Giron, failed to appear at a lien conference. The WCJ ordered Giron to forfeit his share of the fees to the applicant's former attorneys due to non-appearance. The Appeals Board rescinded this order, finding a potential due process violation due to unclear notice and a lack of opportunity for Giron to be heard on the fee division. The matter was returned to the WCJ to determine reasonable attorney's fees and consider potential sanctions for Giron's conduct.

ADJ8059380Alvaro AbarcaReimer FarmsAmtrust North AmericaLaw Offices of Lionel GironQuinlan Kershawattorney feeslien conferencereconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
10
Case No. ADJ8383910
Regular
Feb 14, 2013

ALVARO ORTEGA vs. VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal. The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to be verified as required by WCAB Rule 10843(b). Furthermore, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits even if it had been properly verified. The Board also admonished defense counsel for failing to fairly state all material evidence as required by WCAB Rule 10842(a).

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843(b)WCAB Rule 10842(a)DiscoveryDue DiligenceAOE/COEPanel QMEMedical RecordsCausationSanctions
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. Fred Alvaro Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee, was injured while unloading building supplies at a construction site owned by the defendant. The injury occurred during manual removal of materials after a hydraulic device malfunctioned, allegedly under the direction of the defendant's representative. Plaintiff sued alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claims, reasoning that construction activity was absent on the specific lot. This appellate court reversed, emphasizing a flexible interpretation of 'work site' under Labor Law. It concluded that unloading materials for imminent use in ongoing construction falls within the statutes' scope, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Construction site injuryLabor Law liabilitySummary judgment appealWork site scopeHydraulic device accidentManual unloading injuryNondelegable dutyAppellate DivisionBuilding materials deliveryImminent construction use
References
7
Case No. ADJ7174342
Regular
Jul 29, 2010

ALVARO CARRILLO vs. CP MANUFACTURING, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was sought from a non-final procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding their objection to venue untimely. The defendant failed to file their venue objection within the 30-day window and did not provide the required sworn statement regarding receipt of notice. Therefore, venue remains in Los Angeles, though a future venue change for good cause is not precluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueFinal OrderProcedural OrderLabor Code section 5501.5(c)Appeals Board rule 10410Untimely ObjectionVenue
References
2
Case No. SFO 0490700
Regular
Mar 26, 2008

Mercedes Abarca vs. RITZ CARLTON HALF MOON BAY

The Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award to limit the payment for the interferential muscle stimulator (IMS) device and supplies. Initially, the Administrative Law Judge found the device necessary for the entire period claimed, but upon reviewing Dr. Wolfer's note, the Board limited coverage to November 19, 2005, to January 30, 2006. This amendment reflects that the IMS device was deemed necessary for the industrial injury only during this specific timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings & Awardinterferential muscle stimulator (IMS device)lien claimantRS Medicalself-procured medical expenseutilization reviewsubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationWCJ report and recommendation
References
0
Case No. ADJ10485403
Regular
Aug 01, 2018

ALVARO JACKSON vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that dismissed his claim. The administrative law judge found the claim barred by the statute of limitations, as it was filed over five years after the alleged date of injury and the last provision of benefits. The applicant's arguments regarding a fraudulent DWC-1 form and doctor's opinions were deemed irrelevant to the statute of limitations issue. The Board dismissed the petition because the applicant failed to demonstrate grounds for reconsideration and did not address the controlling legal issue of the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactDWC-1 forminadmissiblestatute of limitationsLabor Code section 5405(a)Labor Code section 5405(c)actual knowledgeWCJ
References
7
Case No. ADJ10450746
Regular
Jun 18, 2019

ALVARO CENTENO ALVAREZ vs. BURTON WAY CARMEL, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on May 29, 2019, which was more than the 25-day statutory deadline after the WCJ's May 3, 2019 decision. The WCAB clarified that filing means actual receipt by the Board, not just mailing. Since the petition was late, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845Proof of mailing insufficientFinal decisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge report
References
4
Case No. ADJ383454
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

ALVARO RAMOS vs. HIGHRISE CONCRETE SYSTEMS, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This was due to the original decision lacking substantial evidence and a clear basis for its findings regarding the extent of the applicant's industrial injuries. The Board found the WCJ failed to adequately explain the evidence relied upon for both the admitted injuries and the denied injuries. Additionally, the Board clarified that the applicant's credibility was initially misstated and further medical evidence may be required for denied conditions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLower ExtremitiesPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentPsyche InjuryInternals Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ556119 (VNO 0500866), ADJ2527731 (VNO 0500867), ADJ3849638 (VNO 0500870)
Regular
Sep 10, 2013

ALVARO AGUILLA vs. FULLMER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the applicant's permanent disability apportionment. The Board found the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) apportionment opinion regarding pre-existing degenerative disc disease and obesity to be inconsistent and lacking substantial medical evidence. Due to the AME's failure to provide a well-supported basis for apportionment, the Board rescinded the previous award. Consequently, the applicant was awarded 100% permanent disability without apportionment.

ApportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Substantial Medical EvidencePermanent DisabilityWCJReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationCausationCumulative TraumaDegenerative Disc Disease
References
3
Case No. ADJ556119 (VNO 0500866) ADJ2527731 (VNO 0500867) ADJ3849638 (VNO 0500870)
Regular
Jan 11, 2013

ALVARO AGUILA vs. FULLMER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the trial judge failed to adequately address significant issues. Specifically, the Board found the judge erred in awarding unapportioned permanent disability without clarifying conflicting medical opinions on apportionment. Furthermore, the judge's denial of the employer's overpayment credit was insufficiently explained, and the commutation of the award was based on an unclear methodology. The case is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision by a different judge.

ApportionmentPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardCommutationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Treating PhysicianVocational ExpertOverpayment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 17 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