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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rondon v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Claimant, a bus driver, was injured in 2007 and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits for an eight-month period. The self-insured employer challenged these benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, alleging the claimant worked during the disqualification period and attempted to introduce video evidence. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) refused to admit the video due to lack of authentication by the investigator who filmed it, eventually closing the record when the employer failed to produce all necessary investigators. While the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the investigator's testimony wasn't strictly necessary for authentication, it upheld the WCLJ's closure of the record because the employer hadn't appealed the initial authentication ruling and failed to present all investigators. Consequently, the Board remitted the case for a determination on claimant's disqualification, a decision which the employer appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as an interlocutory order that did not resolve all substantive issues.

Appeal DismissalInterlocutory OrderEvidence AuthenticationVideo FootageClaimant BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAdministrative ReviewRecord ClosureAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a
References
2
Case No. OAK 0279116, OAK 0323541
Regular
May 02, 2008

BARBARA MCMILLER vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the prior order approving a Compromise and Release. This action was taken because the defendant contested the validity of the settlement, alleging the applicant died prior to signing the agreement and that the signature was not authentic. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the legitimacy of the settlement agreement.

McMillerCounty of AlamedaSedgwick Claims Management ServicesOAK 0279116OAK 0323541Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJsettlementapplicant died
References
0
Case No. ADJ6908926
Regular
Jan 14, 2013

ALONSO RAMIREZ vs. ROYALTY LANDSCAPE, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision, returning the case to the trial level. This was due to the improper exclusion of defendant's payroll records, which were relevant to determining applicant's employment status. The Board found that these records should have been admitted despite the lack of formal authentication, as workers' compensation proceedings allow for significant latitude in evidence admission. The case will be reheard for a proper admission of evidence and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderEmploymentGardenerBack InjuryShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryTerminationDue Process
References
3
Case No. ADJ1092183 (LBO 0352297) ADJ2573196 (LBO 0352957)
Regular
Feb 13, 2018

PEDRO DELRIO vs. THE POWER PEO, RAINFOREST FLORA, INC., REINSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, CLAIMQUEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the disallowance of a lien claimant's claim. The claimant based their claim on an alleged settlement agreement, but the document lacked proper authentication and contained significant discrepancies, including an incorrect case number. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding the claimant failed to meet their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This decision affirmed that admitted evidence must still be evaluated for weight and sufficiency.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLABOR CODE SECTION 5705PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCESUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCELIEN CLAIMANTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWCJ REPORTAUTHENTICATION OF EVIDENCEPROTESTED EXHIBITSMINUTES OF HEARING AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
References
3
Case No. ADJ195121 (SBR 328555)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

VIRGINIA CROM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding payment for medical services. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of $\$ 990.00$ in addition to prior payments, totaling $\$ 2,642.00$ for one procedure. The lien claimant's attempt to introduce a comparative study to prove the reasonableness of its charges was rejected due to a lack of foundation, as no witness was present to authenticate the document.

Lien claimantReconsiderationFindings and AwardOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleMedicare reimbursementHearsayFoundationDeclarationsComparative StudyProbative force
References
9
Case No. ADJ4408951
Regular
Nov 03, 2008

SILVIA PAREDES-NOVA vs. DOS DE ORO BAR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings concerning a lien claimant's reimbursement. The Board found the administrative law judge erred in denying the lien solely due to a lack of formal document authentication, as workers' compensation proceedings are not bound by strict common law evidence rules. Furthermore, the Board clarified that lien claimants bear the burden of proving the reasonableness of outpatient surgery fees, as detailed in their recent en banc decision, *Tapia*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise & ReleaseIndustrial injurySpine injuryAuthentication of documentsBurden of proofReasonable amount of services
References
11
Case No. ADJ9175444 ADJ9175443 ADJ9182342 ADJ9863288
Regular
Sep 11, 2017

ALEXANDRA MOON (RAMIREZ) vs. LONG BEACH COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the State Compensation Insurance Fund's (SCIF) petition for reconsideration. SCIF sought to overturn penalties and attorney's fees awarded due to an alleged unreasonable delay in issuing settlement proceeds. The Board upheld the administrative law judge's decision, finding that SCIF failed to sufficiently prove that replacement settlement checks were mailed on the dates claimed, thus supporting the applicant's testimony of a delay. The exclusion of SCIF's exhibits for lack of authentication was also deemed proper.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award OrdersWCJSCIFSettlement ProceedsPenaltyInterestAttorney's FeesCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ7379785
Regular
Aug 31, 2018

SELFA MARCILAN vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision finding an applicant sustained a 100% permanent disability due to a stroke, anxiety, heart, and hypertension from her employment. The Board rescinded the decision, finding the WCJ erred by admitting handwritten notes from the applicant into evidence without requiring a showing that they were unavailable or undiscoverable prior to the Mandatory Settlement Conference. The case is returned to the trial level for a new decision, including a determination on the admissibility of the notes under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). If admitted, defendants will be allowed further discovery on their authenticity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Due DiligenceAdmissibilityWork StressStrokePermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
7
Case No. ADJ2093013 (SJO 0235147)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

ROBERTO BEJARANO vs. CHECKMATE/TOWER STAFFING, RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, OLD REPUBLIC

The WCAB granted reconsideration to address the petitioner's (Ryder Integrated Logistics) arguments regarding its special employer status. Petitioner contended that the administrative law judge (WCJ) improperly admitted evidence, including emails and a transportation contract, and failed to rule on a motion to exclude testimony. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that Ryder was the special employer, noting that formal authentication of evidence is not required in WCAB proceedings and that the contract and credible witness testimony supported the finding. The Board also granted reconsideration to correct clerical errors in the original award regarding exhibit numbering and the recipient of the award.

Special employerGeneral employerReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative law judgeIllegally uninsuredTransportation contractAdmissible evidenceClerical errorWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1969

Heldman v. Douglas

The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted a preliminary injunction against defendants Douglas and Stingo in an action for an injunction and money damages. The preliminary injunction was based on a non-compete covenant in a distributor's agreement between Heldman Catering Co., Inc. and the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this order, denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found the preliminary injunction improvidently granted because the covenant was unenforceable due to Heldman Catering Co., Inc. discontinuing business, there was substantial doubt regarding the agreement's authenticity, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct was enjoinable, as the business knowledge utilized was publicly available.

InjunctionNon-compete clausePreliminary injunctionDistributor agreementContract lawAbuse of discretionCovenant not to competeBusiness discontinuationEnjoinable conductTrade secrets
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 22 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