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. ADJ8642799
Regular
Nov 01, 2018

ARTURO LEDESMA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order finding applicant temporarily totally disabled. The Board affirmed that the Employment Development Department (EDD) is entitled to recover its lien for disability benefits paid during the period of temporary total disability. Temporary disability is not subject to apportionment, though liability for such benefits between carriers on successive injuries can be addressed through contribution proceedings. The Board found substantial evidence supported the temporary disability finding, including EDD records and QME Sofia's reports noting applicant was off work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArturo LedesmaBarrett Business ServicesInc.Corvel CorporationADJ8645906Employment Development DepartmentEDD lienQualified Medical ExaminerPeter J. Sofia
References
Case No. ADJ7017513
Regular
May 14, 2014

ARTURO JACOBO vs. DUCOMMUN AERO STRUCTURES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

In case ADJ7017513, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Arturo Jacobo's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report. The Board considered the applicant's response to the report before issuing its denial. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was officially denied by the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10848WCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureDenying PetitionDucommun Aero StructuresTravelers Insurance CompanyArturo JacoboADJ7017513
References
Case No. ADJ1129507
Regular
May 23, 2013

CARLOS LEDESMA vs. CALIFORNIA FURNITURE SUPPLY COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Carlos Ledesma against California Furniture Supply Company and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. The Board has adopted the judge's recommendation and ordered the dismissal of the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationDismissalCarlos LedesmaCalifornia Furniture Supply CompanyZenith Insurance CompanyADJ1129507LBO 0384640
References
Case No. ADJ7481094
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

ARTURO MARTINEZ vs. DISNEYLAND RESORT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration in the case of *Martinez v. Disneyland Resort* following a petition by lien claimant Safety Works Medical, Inc. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB aims to fully understand the record to issue a just decision. All future communications regarding this case must now be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to any district office or e-filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationCommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDisneyland ResortSafety Works Medical
References
Case No. ADJ2940485 (AHM 0129125) ADJ2870513 (AHM 0129124)
Regular
Dec 08, 2008

Jon Ledesma vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM

This case concerns the apportionment of permanent disability for an applicant with two successive injuries to overlapping body parts that became permanent and stationary simultaneously. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney's fees. The Board is awaiting the Court of Appeal's decision in *Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which addresses similar apportionment issues, before further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJon LedesmaCity of AnaheimJoint Findings Award and Orderindustrial injurypermanent disabilityseparate awardscombined awardsapportionmentBenson v. Permanente Medical Group
References
Case No. ADJ2258100 (LAO 0864241)
Regular
Jul 03, 2013

ARTURO VILCHES vs. STEVE KNAPP RACING STABLES, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES/CHARTIS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB will use this reconsideration to ensure a complete understanding of the record and issue a just decision. Pending this, all future filings must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not to district offices or via e-filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationArturo VilchesSteve Knapp Racing StablesAIG Claims ServicesChartis InsuranceStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal Issues
References
Case No. ADJ7191867
Regular
Mar 23, 2012

ARTURO ESCOBAR vs. HENRY WINE GROUP dba ZEPHYR EXPRESS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision because the WCJ's imposition of a 20% penalty for delayed payment did not adequately explain the penalty amount based on established legal factors. While a delay in payment was found, the Board remanded the case for the WCJ to re-evaluate penalties and interest by clearly applying factors from relevant case law and justifying the awarded amounts with specific evidence. The original decision also failed to separately address statutory interest owed on the delayed payment. The Board emphasized the need for decisions to articulate the evidentiary basis and reasoning for penalty assessments.

Labor Code section 5814Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJZurich American Insurance CompanyArturo EscobarHenry Wine GroupZephyr ExpressCompromise & Releasepenalty
References
Case No. ADJ1930275
Regular
Sep 21, 2015

JUAN LEDESMA vs. NELSON MARTINEZ, AMADOR ESTRADA, SARA MONTENEGRO

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Juan Ledesma for an injury sustained on December 4, 2004, while working on a construction project. The applicant was hired by Nelson Martinez, who was working under Amador Estrada. Sara Montenegro, the property owner at the time of the injury, sought dismissal as a defendant, but her Petition for Reconsideration was denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the judge's findings that Montenegro did not intend to convey the property and engaged in transactions to avoid liability after the injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationProperty Owner LiabilityGrant DeedEasementBuilding PermitsAvoid LiabilitySubsequent TransactionsInadvertent ErrorWCABWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ10902181
Regular
Aug 29, 2018

ARTURO GUARDADO BARAJAS vs. VALMONT INDUSTRIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that Arturo Guardado Barajas' claim for a right shoulder injury on June 27, 2016, was not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who gave great weight to the applicant's credible testimony. The WCJ found that the employer had sufficient notice of the injury prior to termination, based on the applicant's phone message to his supervisor and his statement to HR. The defense's failure to produce phone records to rebut the applicant's testimony further supported this finding.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 3600(a)(10)post-termination defenseAOE/COEcredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Agreed Medical Evaluatornotice of injuryBraewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ1930275 (LAO 0856552)
Regular
Aug 19, 2019

Juan Ledesma vs. Nelson Martinez, Amador Estrada, Sara Montenegro

This case concerns Applicant Juan Ledesma's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on December 4, 2004, while working as a drywall installer. The initial decision denied benefits, finding intoxication barred recovery under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior order and finding that Applicant did sustain injury to multiple body parts. The Board determined the defendants failed to prove Applicant's intoxication was a substantial or proximate cause of his injury, therefore section 3600(a)(4) did not bar recovery, deferring other issues.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderintoxication defenseproximate causesubstantial factoraffirmative defensepre-ponderance of the evidencesubstantial evidenceAOE/COE
References
Showing 1-10 of 49 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