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. ADJ4570795 (SAL 066339)
Regular
Nov 08, 2010

DOMINICK TAORMINA vs. CITY OF SALINAS, ET AL.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns Dominick Taormina versus the City of Salinas. The Board granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental petition, allowing them to respond to the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report and recommendations. However, the Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Findings and Order, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Additionally, Westport Insurance Company was admonished for exceeding page limits in their answer without prior permission.

WCABSupplemental PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportWestport Insurance CompanyCCR 10848CCR 10845Findings and OrderService by Mail
References
Case No. ADJ6537787
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

LUIS RAMOS vs. WESTEND STAFFING SOLUTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Long Beach Medical Center, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on multiple procedural deficiencies: the petition was skeletal, lacked a legally valid verification, and failed to provide proper proof of service on the defendant and other parties. The Board emphasized that failure to serve parties is a substantive omission, and an unverified petition also fails to meet statutory requirements. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLien ClaimantSkeletal PetitionLack of VerificationProof of ServiceWCJLabor Code section 5902Labor Code section 5903
References
Case No. ADJ3814780
Regular
May 13, 2013

MARTIN VENEGAS vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing liens. The liens were dismissed by operation of law for failure to timely pay the lien activation fee, and a Notice of Intention to Dismiss was unnecessary. The lien claimant's representative was present when the dismissal order was issued, but argued the petition was timely based on the defendant's proof of service. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the lien claimant had notice and the petition for reconsideration was frivolous.

Lien Activation FeeOrder Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ConferenceDismissed by Operation of LawPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeProof of ServiceLien ClaimantTimely Paid
References
Case No. ADJ8172096
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

MARIA DEL SOCORRO MEDELLIN vs. ANNETTE ROJAS, FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant to be an employee based on credible testimony and medical records. The defendant contended the WCJ erred in finding employment, but the WCJ found the applicant met the hours requirement under Labor Code Section 3352(h). The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code Section 3352(h)housekeeperemploymentdate of injuryPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Petition
References
Case No. ADJ7616809
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

Salvador Mora vs. Scheenstra Dairy, York Claims Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Angel Acupuncture's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The lien claimant failed to timely file their objection to the dismissal of their lien claim. Even if the petition had been timely, the Board found no good cause to overturn the dismissal. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report and recommendation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimely FilingLien ClaimantAngel AcupunctureAdministrative Law JudgeNotice of Intent to DismissGood CauseCCP §473(b)
References
Case No. POM 0294611
Regular
Oct 12, 2007

ELIZABETH VILLANUEVA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Elizabeth Villanueva's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ found Villanueva lacked credibility due to contradictory testimony regarding her claimed back injury and its reporting. The Board adopted the ALJ's reasoning, giving great weight to their credibility determination.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Credibility FindingSkeletal PetitionTitle 8 CCR 10846Proof of ServiceCCR Rule 10850Impeachment
References
Case No. ADJ6698865
Regular
Aug 12, 2010

VALENTINO VILLALPANDO vs. CINTAS CORPORATION, INC., XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE Administered By CAMBRIDGE/XCHANGING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cintas Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration and Removal. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant needs further medical treatment but clarified that this does not preclude future challenges to specific treatment. The Board also upheld the striking of the QME report due to procedural violations by the defendant, including failure to provide a log of records and a Spanish interpreter. Consequently, the defendant's challenges to the QME report and orders regarding Dr. Bogerty's evaluation were also denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFurther Medical Treatment (FMT)Utilization ReviewMedical Provider Network (MPN)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical UnitDr. SoongDr. Bogarty
References
Case No. ADJ7782081
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

IGNACIO PIMENTEL vs. CASA LA GOLONDRINA, PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The defendant argued the applicant's testimony was not credible and alleged fraud based on new evidence from co-workers. However, the Board found the evidence, including co-worker testimony and the employer's report, supported the applicant's account. The Board also found the defendant's petition did not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence or fraud under CCR § 10856.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.course of employmenttemporary disabilityfurther medical treatmentsubstantial evidenceapplicant's testimonynewly discovered evidence
References
Case No. ADJ3155871
Regular
Sep 17, 2009

ANTO'NIO PAULO vs. SIENA IMPORTS, FIRST COMP OMAHA For ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the specialty of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant, Antonio Paulo, objected to the defendant's requested QME specialty, arguing the defendant failed to follow proper procedure by not providing supporting documentation for a specialty different from the treating physician's. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the decision to void the initial panel. The Board found the applicant's objections were timely and the defendant had not demonstrated significant prejudice.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPQME Panel SelectionMedical UnitWCAB JurisdictionSpecialty DisputePain ManagementSpinePrimary Treating Physician8 CCR 31.1
References
Case No. ADJ11350784
Regular
Jan 13, 2020

LUIS RODRIGUEZ vs. BRAD NYMAN DBA LIVE OAK DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant challenging a finding that he waived his right to a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant requested a replacement panel after the initially appointed QME could not schedule an exam within 60 days, but the exam was ultimately scheduled within 90 days. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition, finding that by accepting an appointment within the 90-day window, he waived his right to a replacement panel. The Board also found the applicant's due process claims unpersuasive, as he had a full opportunity to litigate the issue.

QME panel disputewaiver of replacement panelAOE/COEdue processthreshold issueinterlocutory decisionremoval standardirreparable harmsignificant prejudiceAD Rule 31.3
References
Showing 1-10 of 114 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