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. ADJ9 088743
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

LEO ESTRELLA vs. MILWAUKEE BREWERS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE USA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leo Estrella's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that his cumulative injury claim against the Milwaukee Brewers and San Francisco Giants was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Board found that applicant knew or should have known of his right to file a claim more than one year prior to filing, precluding application of the five-year "new and further disability" statute. Applicant's contention that the statute of limitations was tolled due to lack of knowledge was rejected, as the evidence indicated he was aware of the industrial causation of his injuries by 2009. One commissioner dissented, arguing the date of injury should be 2013 and that defendants failed to prove applicant's knowledge of his rights or the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410New and Further DisabilityTollingDate of InjuryIndustrial CausationProfessional Baseball Player
References
14
Case No. ADJ6616915, ADJ7949365
Regular
May 29, 2012

MOHAMMAD TAHVILDAR RAZAVI vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Mohammad Tahvildar Razavi's appeal regarding delays in workers' compensation benefits from Whole Foods Market, Inc. The Appeals Board denied Razavi's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision. The Board found that while there was a delay in paying interest on an attorney fee check, the applicant failed to prove any unreasonable delay in the payment of permanent disability benefits. The Board reiterated that the applicant's contentions were not adequately supported by evidence or specific citations.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENYGRANTFINDINGS OF FACTAWARDOPINION AND ORDERADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEPERMANENT DISABILITYTEMPORARY DISABILITY
References
2
Case No. ADJ7072206
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

MARLON MARTINEZ vs. CPS SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of a 35% permanent disability for the applicant's back and psyche injury. The Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, amending the original award to reflect the correct weekly compensation rate of $264.50, as stipulated by the parties. The employer had contested the permanent disability rating, arguing it was based on an inappropriate medical opinion and should be lower. The applicant's primary contention was the underpayment of weekly permanent disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Opinion EvidenceGuides criteriaWPI ratingWeekly Compensation RateLabor Code §4658(d)
References
0
Case No. ADJ7098412; ADJ7098413 ADJ7098414; ADJ7099557 ADJ7095101; ADJ7095118
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

ERLINDA SALES vs. HYATT REGENCY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and unverified, and denied her petition for removal. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the WCJ's Minute Order requiring the applicant to attend a PQME, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. The applicant argued the Minute Order denied due process by not allowing a hearing on her contention of defendant's non-compliance with medical evaluation procedures.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderPanel Qualified Medical ExaminationPQMEDr. KimLabor Code section 4062.2(c)Due ProcessUntimely Petition
References
12
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. ADJ9549789, ADJ10928268
Regular
May 05, 2025

IVAN MIRAMONTES vs. LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Applicant Ivan Miramontes sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award from January 27, 2025, which found industrial injury to his psyche and specific body parts with assigned permanent disabilities. Applicant raised contentions including defective service, mischaracterization of his primary orthopedic doctor, alleged attorney failure, and reliance on unsubstantial medical evidence, particularly regarding Dr. Faddoul's report. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit specified exhibits into evidence to correct a clerical error by the WCJ. The Board otherwise affirmed the WCJ's findings, concluding that the petition was timely filed and the applicant's other contentions lacked merit.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsycheHipsChestNeckWristShouldersPermanent Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dworkes & Chalek

This case involves an application by a petitioner to stay arbitration against respondent Chalek, stemming from disputes related to a partnership agreement dated July 18, 1961. The partnership agreement includes an arbitration clause for controversies arising out of the contract. The petitioner argued that the disputes were not subject to arbitration due to unambiguous terms, lack of explicit arbitrator permission for interpretation, and the improper inclusion of an agreement without an arbitration clause. The court found the petitioner's contentions without merit, affirming that while the court determines if an arbitrable dispute exists, the interpretation of a broadly agreed-upon arbitration clause is for the arbitrators. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was denied, the petition dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeStay of ArbitrationMotion DeniedArbitrabilityScope of ArbitrationAmerican Arbitration AssociationDispute ResolutionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. 01-23-00444-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2024

Kinetic Content, LLC v. Tran Dang

Kinetic Content, LLC appeals the denial of its special appearance in a lawsuit filed by Tran Dang. Dang, a a participant in the 'Love is Blind' reality show produced by Kinetic and Delirium TV, LLC, alleges sexual assault by another participant, Thomas Smith, in Mexico. She also claims false imprisonment and negligence, asserting she was recruited in Houston, the show was based there, and she was sequestered in a Houston hotel after returning from Mexico. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the special appearance for Dang's false imprisonment and negligence claims, finding Kinetic had sufficient purposeful contacts with Texas related to these claims. However, the court reversed the denial for the assault claims, concluding they did not sufficiently relate to Kinetic's Texas contacts as the operative facts occurred in Mexico. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceInterlocutory AppealDue ProcessMinimum ContactsSpecific JurisdictionFalse ImprisonmentNegligenceAssault ClaimsForum Contacts
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 14,393 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