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. ADJ10072624
Regular
Nov 30, 2017

BARBARA GARZA vs. BARBOSA CABINETS, INC., APPLIED RISK

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant filed a Petition for Removal challenging a discovery order from the WCJ. Subsequently, the parties entered into a stipulation and order resolving their dispute. This resolution rendered the Petition for Removal moot and withdrawn. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalPretrial Conference Statement Orderdiscovery disputemootwithdrawnStipulation and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdministrative Law JudgeBarbosa Cabinets
References
0
Case No. ADJ9389953
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

IGNACIO BARRON vs. PAK’S CABINETS, SOUTHERN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended its prior decision regarding Ignacio Barron's claim against Pak's Cabinets. The amended decision affirmed the original award of permanent disability at 40%, payable at $230.00 per week for 201 weeks, totaling $46,230.00, less attorney fees. Crucially, the amendment acknowledged that the Employment Development Department paid unemployment benefits during the period of indemnity and allowed a lien for overlapping payments, to be determined by a workers' compensation judge.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportAMENDED decisiontemporary disability indemnitypermanent disability indemnityEmployment Development Departmentunemployment compensation disability benefitsoverlapping paymentslien claimaward
References
0
Case No. ADJ9381883
Regular
Aug 04, 2014

PATRICK ROBERTSON vs. RON BONNANO, dba ALPINE CABINETS, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, defendant Ron Bonnano, dba Alpine Cabinets, sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board granted the petition for reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action allows for a more complete understanding of the record to ensure a just decision. All future communications must now be filed in writing with the Board's Commissioners in San Francisco, not at the district office or electronically.

References
0
Case No. ADJ3058631 (FRE 0225238) ADJ4053535 (FRE 0206567)
Regular
May 01, 2018

JOE GUTIERREZ vs. CLOVIS SANGER CABINET MANUFACTURING AND AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by defendants Clovis Sanger Cabinet Manufacturing and American Claims Management. The Board found that defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from an interim order vacating a prior deposition order. Furthermore, the Board determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The matter is scheduled for a Mandatory Settlement Conference where the deposition issue can be revisited.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDepositionVacated OrderDiscoveryEx Parte
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollock v. Chertoff

Plaintiff, a former employee of The Barbosa Group, a contractor for the Government, filed an action alleging gender discrimination and wrongful termination. The Government moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's Title VII claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court granted the Government's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence in pursuing administrative remedies, specifically the 45-day informal counseling requirement, despite being represented by counsel. Consequently, the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery was denied, and the remaining state law claims against The Barbosa Group defendants were dismissed as the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelFederal Question JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionFailure to ExhaustGender Discrimination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2000

Lane v. Fisher Park Lane Co.

Plaintiff, a temporary employee, sued Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) and property managers (Fisher defendants) after being injured by a falling cabinet door. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing workers' compensation as an exclusive remedy for UBS and lack of landlord liability for Fisher defendants. Plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions due to the cabinet's destruction. The trial court granted sanctions, but the appellate court reversed, asserting that legal entitlement to dismissal should be addressed first, irrespective of the spoliation. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff was a special employee of UBS, making workers' compensation her sole remedy, and that the Fisher defendants, as out-of-possession landlords, were not liable for the non-structural defect. Therefore, summary judgment was granted to all defendants, and the complaint was dismissed.

Spoliation of evidenceSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationSpecial employeeLandlord liabilityPremises liabilityAppellate reviewAffirmative defensesExclusive remedyTemporary employment
References
15
Case No. ADJ577900 (STK 0187827)
Regular
Jul 18, 2011

DARIO MEDRANO vs. FEIST CABINETS, VIRGINIA SURETY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision regarding Dr. Brown's medical lien. The Board found that the reasonableness and necessity of Dr. Brown's treatment charges for applicant's 2003 industrial neck and back injury require further review. While defendants failed to properly object to bills, Dr. Brown still bears the burden of proving reasonableness. The case is remanded for the WCJ to determine which specific charges were reasonable and necessary, subject to OMFS, penalties, and interest.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical Treatment LienReasonableness and NecessityOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleBurden of ProofIndustrial InjuryCompromise and ReleaseBill ReviewAdministrative Director Rules
References
2
Case No. ADJ2087163 (SJO 0269417)
Regular
Oct 04, 2011

JOSE CHIRINOS vs. HEARTWOOD CABINET, MAJESTIC INURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a contribution claim between two insurance carriers, Virginia Surety and Majestic Insurance, for benefits paid to applicant Jose Chirinos. The arbitrator awarded Virginia Surety contribution, but apportioned benefits, finding only 30% attributable to cumulative trauma injury covered by Majestic, with the remainder from a specific injury covered by Virginia Surety. Virginia Surety challenged the admissibility of Dr. Scott's report, which formed the basis for this apportionment, as it was not based on a physical examination. The Appeals Board affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding Dr. Scott's report admissible under the unique circumstances of contribution proceedings where the applicant is uncooperative and discovery rights are deferred.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationContributionCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerDiscovery RightsLabor Code Section 5500.5Medical Records Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ6708769
Regular
Sep 20, 2012

MARTHA GARCIA vs. ROYAL CABINETS, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a lien claimant, SAI Professional Services, seeking reconsideration of a WCJ's order dismissing its lien. The lien claimant argued it had filed an objection to the Notice of Intention to Dismiss, asserting they never received notice of the lien trial. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and returned the matter to the WCJ. This was due to the WCJ appearing unaware of the lien claimant's timely filed objection, preventing the WCJ from considering its merits. The Board also advised the lien claimant that future unverified petitions would be dismissed.

Lien claimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to DismissWCJPetition for ReconsiderationObjectionGood CauseVerificationRescind
References
1
Case No. ADJ10300372
Regular
Jan 25, 2018

Troy Morkal vs. Cabinet Crafters, Security National Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The applicant claimed the C&R was based on a mistake by his former attorney and opposing counsel. However, the WCAB found no evidence or testimony under oath in the record to support these allegations of mistake. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition as premature and recommended it be treated as a petition to set aside, requiring a hearing for the applicant to present evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeGood CauseStipulationLabor Code § 5803
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 41 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