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. ADJ8128282
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

ANGELA EGBIKUADJE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, returning the case for further proceedings. The defendant, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, argued that the applicant's psychiatric injury claim was preempted by the ADA and not proven under Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board found the original decision lacked proper analysis regarding predominant industrial causation and the good faith personnel action defense. Therefore, the case was remanded for further development of the record, including expert medical opinion on these issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAngela EgbikuadjeCalifornia Department of Corrections and RehabilitationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8128282Van Nuys District OfficeReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial cumulative trauma injury
References
Case No. ADJ2569930
Regular
Jul 30, 2012

LOUIS DOBERT vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior decision to grant removal and rescind a stay of proceedings, which had been sought pending the applicant's criminal fraud trial. The Board reasoned that continuing to provide workers' compensation benefits aligns with the applicant's presumption of innocence. Denying benefits before a conviction would unjustly prejudice the applicant, and restitution can be sought if convicted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalStay of ProceedingsPresumption of InnocenceWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance FraudGrand TheftAttempted PerjuryFindings and Award
References
Case No. ADJ2569930 (OAK 0314153)
Regular
Aug 25, 2011

LOUIS DOBERT vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to stay workers' compensation proceedings pending the outcome of criminal fraud charges against the applicant. The WCAB agreed with the administrative law judge that a stay was not warranted given the applicant's presumption of innocence and the lack of probable cause shown. The WCAB emphasized that if convicted, benefits could be denied and restitution sought, but a stay would unnecessarily delay claims if acquitted, contrary to constitutional mandates for swift justice.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalStay of ProceedingsCriminal ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance FraudGrand TheftAttempted PerjuryPresumption of Innocence
References
Case No. ADJ7030286, ADJ7222855
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

DEBORAH STANFIELD HALL vs. OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant attempted to disqualify the judge after a trial where witnesses testified, claiming the judge was disrespectful and showed favoritism. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, finding it untimely because it was filed after the swearing of the first witness. Additionally, the petition lacked the required affidavit supporting the disqualification grounds and did not specify any grounds under Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and dismissed it.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCJ RadosPetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10452affidavit or declarationpenalty of perjuryswearing of the first witnessindustrial injuriescustomer service clerk
References
Case No. ADJ8182087
Regular
Jan 18, 2018

Darin Day vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision allowing a medical lien by VQ Orthocare against the City of Los Angeles. The Board found VQ's lien was valid despite late filing of a required declaration, as the lien was filed before the relevant statute's effective date. Defendant's arguments regarding the timeliness and form of the declaration were rejected, with the Board noting compliance with procedural rules for electronic filing and declarations under penalty of perjury. The lien was thus permitted to proceed on its merits.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)Declaration requirementLien validityStatute of limitationsReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical treatment lienSB 863SB 1160Declaration of readiness
References
Case No. ADJ7128393
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

TOMASA MARTINEZ vs. GUS JR.; FARMER'S INSURANCE COMPANY, Mid-Century Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and dismissed a petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to change venue from Los Angeles to Riverside, claiming the initial filing was untimely. However, their petition lacked the required verification and statement under penalty of perjury regarding notice receipt, thus failing to establish timeliness under WCAB Rule 10410. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, noting that the defendant could still seek venue change later based on good cause for witness convenience.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ7128393PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALCHANGE OF VENUERIVERSIDE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYWCJLABOR CODE SECTION 5501.5WCAB RULE 10410
References
Case No. ADJ11136346, ADJ10857795
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

IRMA NELSON vs. SAFEWAY/ALBERTSON'S HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification against a WCJ. The petition failed to provide specific, factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support claims of bias or an expressed opinion on the merits. Because the petition lacked the required factual basis under Labor Code section 5311 and relevant procedural rules, it was insufficient to warrant disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
Case No. ADJ6879751, ADJ6523394, ADJ6523461
Regular
Jun 25, 2018

VICENTE URUENA vs. RESEARCH METAL INDUSTRIES, ILLINOIS MEDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and disqualification of the workers' compensation judge. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, the petition for disqualification lacked specific factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support the claims of bias. Therefore, both aspects of the petition were denied.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10452
References
Case No. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
Case No. ADJ2272286 (LAO 0873209)
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

ENRIQUE CASTRO-AGUILAR vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if applicant's injuries were barred by the initial aggressor defense. The applicant, a security officer, was injured while using pepper spray and restraining a suspected shoplifter who was threatening him with a rock. The Board found that the applicant's actions, though potentially unauthorized in manner, were a good-faith attempt to prevent theft and did not constitute willful wrongdoing. Therefore, he was not the initial aggressor, and his claim for benefits is not barred.

initial aggressor defenseunauthorized mannerscope of employmentcourse of employmentaffirmative defensewillful wrongdoingintentional misconductreal present and apparent threat of bodily harmgood faith attemptprevent theft
References
Showing 1-10 of 352 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