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. ADJ4423738 (OAK 0328993)
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

ANDRE BRADFORD vs. LABOR READY; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Andre Bradford's petition for reconsideration because it was not timely filed. A petition for reconsideration can only be filed from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Interlocutory orders, such as those related to evidence, discovery, or trial setting, are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. Bradford's petition was therefore dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalAggrieved PartyDisqualification
References
Case No. RDG 116853; RDG 116854; RDG 116855; RDG 116856; RDG 122064
Regular
Sep 13, 2007

GARY STODDARD vs. NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, which found no employer discrimination under Labor Code § 132a. However, the Board amended the order to shift $\$500$ in sanctions from the defendant employer to its defense counsel, Bradford & Barthel, for their conduct prior to and during trial. The applicant's contention of discrimination was otherwise rejected.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLabor Code § 132aantidiscriminationreconsiderationsanctionsWCJFindings and OrderOrder No. 5Bradford & Bartheltrial activities
References
Case No. ADJ8620205, ADJ8967412
Regular
Dec 10, 2015

SONIA RODRIGUEZ vs. FRESH BAKED LOVIN OVEN, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding a WCJ's order taking the case off calendar. The Board found that key parties, including the applicant's legal representation (Bradford & Barthel, LLP) and their insurer (PMAIC), were not properly served with notices of hearings. This lack of notice prevented them from participating and asserting their rights, violating due process. The matter is remanded for a properly noticed lien conference and subsequent lien trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJMinute OrderLien ConferenceLien TrialCompromise and ReleaseNotice of RepresentationDue ProcessService
References
Case No. ADJ1137293 (WCK 0038877)
Regular
Feb 08, 2013

SANRA VELEZ vs. BRADFORD STAFFING INC.; CIGA adjusted by SEDGWICK CMS for SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANY

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior dismissal order concerning applicant Sanra Velez. The WCAB rescinded the trial judge's decision, finding it necessary to return the matter for further proceedings and a new decision by the trial judge. This decision is not a final determination of the merits. The parties retain their rights to seek further reconsideration after the trial judge issues a new ruling.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANRA VELEZBRADFORD STAFFING INC.CIGASEDGWICK CMSSUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANYADJ1137293WCJRECONSIDERATIONORDER OF DISMISSAL
References
Case No. ADJ2064794
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

TRINIDAD HERNANDEZ vs. ORECO DUCT SYSTEMS, ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a $\$250$ sanction imposed on applicant's attorney, Peter T. Brown, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The sanction was for filing a petition for reconsideration that was both skeletal and untimely. Mr. Brown was given an opportunity to object and show good cause, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the Board found the sanction justified and ordered payment.

SanctionsLabor Code § 5813Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUntimely PetitionGood CauseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardArbitratorFindings of AwardApplicant Counsel
References
Case No. ADJ7104281
Regular
Aug 27, 2012

LUIS GUERRERO OCHOA vs. EPLICA CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed more than 25 days after the Order of June 11, 2012, violating the 20-day statutory deadline plus 5 days for mailing. Therefore, the petition was untimely. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. The petition is dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelyadministrative law judgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013lien claimantdismissaldenied on the merits
References
Case No. ADJ7518237; ADJ7518238
Regular
Nov 28, 2011

MARCELA ACOSTA vs. FLOYD'S 99 BARBERSHOP, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal in this case and issued a notice of intent to sanction attorney Daniel V. Anaya $500.00 for unspecified reasons. No objection was filed by Anaya, and the $500.00 sanction was subsequently paid. The WCAB confirms the sanction and acknowledges the payment has been transmitted to the General Fund.

RemovalSanctionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDaniel V. AnayaFloyd's 99 BarbershopStar Insurance CompanyTower Select Insurance CompanyIllinois Midwest Insurance CompanyGeneral FundBradford & Barthel
References
Case No. ADJ7574832
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

KATKI MOLLOY vs. COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, AND INDIVIDUALS, MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Katki Molloy's Petition for Removal and dismissed her Petition for Disqualification. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, which detailed the grounds for denial and dismissal. The WCAB also admonished the applicant's attorney for violating the Board's Rules in their petition. No grounds for disqualification were stated, leading to its dismissal.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ ReportAdmonishmentViolation of RulesDismissalDenialSan Jose District Office
References
Case No. ADJ8859237
Regular
Apr 25, 2014

FABIAN PINEDA vs. RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY, SEDGWICK

In this workers' compensation case, Ralph's Grocery Company filed a Petition for Removal, which they subsequently withdrew. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has ordered the Petition for Removal dismissed. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalph's Grocery CompanySedgwickADJ8859237Van Nuys District OfficeBradford & BarthelFrank Mastroni
References
Case No. ADJ151433 (MON0359864) ADJ3286458 (MON0338910)
Regular
Jan 06, 2011

SHERRIE GRACE vs. UHS/CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, EAST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding no grounds for removal at this stage. Defendants are permitted to raise these issues and present evidence at trial. The Board also noted the defendant's violation of WCAB Rule 10848 by submitting a response to the applicant's answer, warning of future sanctions for such violations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ reportdeny removaltrialWCAB Rule 10848sanctionsadministrative law judgedenialcase number
References
Showing 1-10 of 36 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