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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ7641403
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

MARU ARAGAW vs. SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Applicant Maru Aragaw sought to remove an order changing venue from San Francisco to Stockton for her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition. The defendant's objection to the initial San Francisco venue was timely, as it was filed within 30 days of receiving notice of the case number and venue. Therefore, the WCJ correctly ordered the venue changed to Stockton, where the applicant resides.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6WCJSan Francisco district officeStockton district officeApplication for Adjudication of Claimvenue siteobjection to venueRule 10410
References
Case No. ADJ758842 (VNO 0559214)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

JOHN PATCHETT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision to vacate the submission. This action was based on the DEU evaluator's testimony, which revealed deficiencies in the AMEs' reports concerning the AMA Guides. The Board found the applicant waived any objection to this testimony by failing to object at trial, and that the evaluator's expert opinion was permissible per *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. Defendant's objection, though not styled as a motion to strike, sufficiently raised the issues leading to the vacation of the rating.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDEU evaluatorAMA Guidesagreed medical evaluators (AMEs)rating instructionssubstantial evidenceobjective factors of disabilitywhole person impairmentformal rating
References
Case No. ADJ6960749
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

AMALIA AGUILAR vs. PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL, ST, JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM, THE HARTFORD, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a dispute over venue. The defendant timely objected to the applicant's initial filing venue, which was the attorney's principal place of business. The law mandates that if venue is based on the attorney's location and an objection is raised, venue must then be established in the county of the employee's residence or the injury site. Since the applicant resides in and was injured in Sonoma County, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal. The Board rescinded a prior order that had set aside a change of venue and formally transferred the case to the Santa Rosa district office.

EAMSPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside Order of Change of VenueWCJPWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedObjection to VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5WCAB Rule 10410Timeliness of Objection
References
Case No. GOL 96757
Regular
Jun 10, 2008

SA YANG LO vs. CUSTOM SENSORS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award, upholding the application of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board found that exceptions allowing for the 1997 Schedule did not apply, as the applicant's temporary disability indemnity extended beyond January 1, 2005, and no qualifying pre-2005 reports indicated permanent disability. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion regarding diminished future earning capacity unpersuasive, thus affirming the initial 9% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSA Yang LoCustom Sensors & TechnologiesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundGOL 96757Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ4019843
Regular
Oct 24, 2009

HENRYCE WOODARD vs. HIGHLANDER CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN

This case involves a dispute over the proper venue for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant initially filed in Los Angeles, where her attorney is located, but the defendant objected, arguing venue should be in Riverside where the injury occurred and the applicant resided. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's removal petition, rescinded the prior order changing venue to San Diego, and instead ordered venue transferred to Riverside.

RemovalVenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5501.5Labor Code § 5501.6WCAB Rule 10410Industrial InjuryApplication for Adjudication of ClaimChange of VenueRiverside County
References
Case No. ADJ7172643; ADJ7172641
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

JUSTIN MILLER vs. PF CHANGS CHINA BISTRO, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant whose workers' compensation claims were dismissed by the WCJ for lack of activity and prosecution. The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing due process violations and non-compliance with dismissal procedures. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the applicant's objections vague and lacking specific reasons for the lack of prosecution despite ample opportunity. A dissenting opinion argued that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion as the applicant had indicated an intention to prosecute the claim.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Order Dismissing Applicationswithout prejudicePetition for Dismissallack of activity and prosecutionNotice of Intent to Dismiss Applicationsobjections overruleddue process rights violatedCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10582
References
Case No. ADJ7485185, ADJ9885267
Regular
Sep 18, 2017

LAURA ORTIZ vs. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, MID CENTURY INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies a petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's timely invocation of jurisdiction to seek additional benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's filings of an Application for Adjudication of Claim and an Amended Application, along with documented medical evidence of worsening condition, satisfied the requirements for reopening and seeking further compensation. These actions put the defendants on notice of the applicant's intent to pursue increased benefits, even without a formal petition to reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5410Application for Adjudication of ClaimRiel v. State of CaliforniaBeaida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.stipulated awardpro perfuture medical treatmentincreased symptomsworsening condition
References
Case No. ADJ7204282
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

ROBERT TARA (Deceased) vs. HEAVENLY VALLEY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over venue in a workers' compensation claim for a deceased employee. The defendant employer timely objected to the San Diego venue designated by the applicant's attorney, who practices there. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, reversing the prior order. The Board found the venue objection was timely under Labor Code section 5501.5(c) and therefore mandatory venue change to the Sacramento district office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5501.5(c)Venue ObjectionApplication for Adjudication of ClaimPrincipal Place of BusinessIndustrial InjuryDeceased Employee
References
Showing 1-10 of 11,111 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