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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ7503292
Regular
Mar 26, 2013

RIGOBERTO MENDOZA vs. PIZZA MIZZA, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rigoberto Mendoza's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Mendoza did not sustain the alleged industrial injury. The WCJ's decision was based on an evaluation of witness credibility and inconsistencies in Mendoza's account of the injury. Specifically, the WCJ found the employer's testimony more credible regarding the timing and nature of the reported injury. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, leading to the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenialCredibilityGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLeg Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
Case No. ADJ1737228 (LBO 0307803)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

THOMAS MATHENY vs. CATALINA WATER COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION Administered By XCHANGING For FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order directing the defendant to pay a lien due to defective service. The defendant argued it did not receive notice of the lien claim or the order until after the deadline to object, thus being denied due process. The Board found issues with case number referencing and service of the Notice of Intention to Pay Lien, noting the defendant had not had a proper opportunity to present its defense. Consequently, the Board rescinded the order and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Pay LienNotice of Intention to Pay LienCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5903Official Address RecordCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationLiquidationElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
Case No. ADJ9334882
Regular
May 20, 2019

MARIA CASTANEDA vs. ARAMARK, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision grants reconsideration of a prior ruling. The Board adopted the Judge's report, finding that the witness's credibility determination was entitled to great weight and no substantial evidence contradicted it. Consequently, the Board affirmed the prior decision but amended specific findings and struck a portion of the award. The employer's denial of injury to the applicant's left shoulder was determined to be not unreasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.affirm decisionstrike paragraph Camend Findings of Factdenial of injuryleft shoulder
References
Case No. ADJ612384
Regular
Jun 04, 2009

ROSARIO LOPEZ vs. READY PAC PRODUCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves applicant Rosario Lopez's petition for removal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The petition, seeking to rescind an order taking the case off calendar, was dismissed because it was not verified, a mandatory requirement under WCAB rules. While the applicant argued for compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b) due to an untimely denial and preclusion of a QME under section 4062.2, these merits were not reached. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report which, if it had reached the merits, would have denied the petition.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCJ ReportQualified Medical EvaluationsLabor Code Section 5402(b)Labor Code Section 4062.2WCAB Rule 10843(b)DismissalTimely DenialInadequate Denial
References
Case No. SAC 357129
Regular
Sep 24, 2007

MICHAEL HANCOCK vs. TOWNSEND & SCHMIDT MASONRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured in a car accident while commuting to work, with the employer arguing the "going and coming" rule barred recovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that the applicant's injuries were industrial, holding that the rule did not apply. The Board reasoned that the applicant's use of his personal vehicle to transport tools, the potential for inter-job site travel, and the employer's travel pay policy conferred a benefit to the employer, thus justifying an exception to the rule.

going and coming ruleindustrial injuryautomobile accidentcommutebrick tendercourse of employmentWCJpetition for reconsiderationemployer benefitwork materials
References
Case No. ADJ6745654
Regular
May 10, 2010

TRACY WHEELER vs. ONELAGACY, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to the defendant employer, OneLegacy, and its insurer, The Hartford. The Board rescinded the lower judge's finding that the applicant's injury was presumed compensable under Labor Code § 5402(b) due to a delayed denial. Evidence established that an employee with authority to deny the claim determined it should be denied within the statutory 90-day period, even though formal notification was sent later. The case is returned for further proceedings based on this determination.

Labor Code § 5402(b)presumption of compensabilitydenial of claimtimely denialclaim formDWC 1workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)reconsiderationrescinded awardhuman resources vice president
References
Case No. ADJ2558327, ADJ8142450 & ADJ8142428
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

ALENA GIARDINA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision to award a 25% penalty on a portion of benefits. The penalty was applied to the difference between what the applicant was entitled to under Labor Code §4850 and what was actually paid due to the employer's offset for sick pay. The WCJ found this single penalty appropriate for the employer's continuous conduct of delaying payment. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, concluding that the penalty was properly calculated and served the goal of substantial justice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814(a)Unreasonable DelayPenaltyDiscretionFair BalanceSubstantial JusticeLicensed Peace OfficerLabor Code Section 4850
References
Case No. ADJ8011693
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

FRED DICKINSON vs. KING COMPANIES, LLC, dba SERVICE MASTER OF SANTA CRUZ, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Fred Dickinson's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a left eye injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dickinson's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that his injury was not sustained in the course of employment. The denial was based on the administrative law judge's report, which found Dickinson to be an unreliable witness due to inconsistent statements regarding the injury's origin. Specifically, a physician's early report indicated the injury occurred at Dickinson's home, corroborating the employer's testimony about payment options for surgery being provided.

Petition for ReconsiderationAOE/COEcredibilityinconsistent statementssubstantial evidenceindustrial injuryleft eyehardwood flooringprivate payPQME
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,031 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