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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
Case No. GOL 0088273
Regular
Aug 18, 2008

ROBERT SIEBURG vs. RONALD WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found the findings of the administrative law judge regarding $97\%$ permanent disability and apportionment were not supported by substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the opinion of Dr. Kahmann was deemed deficient due to internal inconsistencies, lack of explanation for apportionment, and undefined work restrictions. The Board also found Dr. Basham's report did not meet the standard for substantial medical evidence regarding cognitive dysfunction.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDROBERT SIEBURGRONALD WOLFE & ASSOCIATESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDGOL 0088273OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFindings and AwardWCJmaintenance person
References
Case No. ADJ9625407
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

KEITH FIELD vs. CITY OF PINOLE

This case involves a firefighter who sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome after retirement. The Appeals Board reversed the trial judge, holding that Labor Code section 4458.5 applies, entitling the applicant to permanent disability benefits calculated at the maximum indemnity rate. This applies regardless of the applicant's actual earnings or the fact that carpal tunnel syndrome is not a specifically enumerated presumptive injury. The case is remanded for determination of the precise date of injury to calculate the benefit rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith FieldCity of PinolePermissibly Self-InsuredMunicipal Pooling AuthorityADJ9625407Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryfirefighterbilateral upper extremities
References
Case No. ADJ7181805
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.

This case involves a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failing to pay the required lien activation fee before a scheduled lien conference. The claimant argued that defense counsel informed them the conference was scheduled in error, but the Board found this was not a valid reason to avoid the fee. The Board affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that only the Board, not private parties, can cancel a conference. The claimant was also admonished for failing to properly notify the Board of changes in representation.

Lien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimLien ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDeath BenefitsOff CalendarCal. Code Regs tit. 8 § 10240(a)Lab. Code § 4903.06(a)
References
Case No. ADJ852406
Regular
Feb 24, 2015

TOK SUN SONG vs. CAFE PRINCE aka HWANG TAEJA, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses Tok Sun Song's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal is based on two grounds: the petition was filed untimely, exceeding the statutory 25-day limit after the WCJ's decision. Additionally, the petition was not verified, and the applicant failed to cure this defect or provide a valid explanation within a reasonable time after notice. As these are jurisdictional defects, the Board lacked authority to consider the untimely and unverified petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitVerification DefectCuring DefectsWCAB Rule 10508Labor Code 5900Labor Code 5903Labor Code 5902Cal. Code Regs. 10507
References
Case No. ADJ11420360
Regular
Jul 01, 2025

Candelario Aleman vs. Logistics Dubois Corporation, Guard Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by LRA Interpreters, Inc., a Cost Petitioner. The petitioner's claim for interpreting services was initially dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction, as they failed to comply with Labor Code requirements for requesting a second bill review. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that although interpreting services could be considered medical-legal, the procedural steps for seeking further payment were not followed, thus preventing the WCJ from having jurisdiction to evaluate the reasonableness of the charges. The decision reinforces the necessity of adhering to established billing review procedures.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code60-day periodtransmissionEAMSnoticeReport and RecommendationCost PetitionerLRA Interpreters
References
Case No. ADJ10387805
Regular
Oct 28, 2019

PARDEEP SINGH vs. 7 ELEVEN, MITSUI SUMITOMO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pardee Singh's Petition for Reconsideration. The petition was deemed untimely because it was filed on August 28, 2019, which was after the jurisdictional deadline of August 26, 2019. This deadline was calculated from the service date of an Order Allowing Costs on August 1, 2019. The WCAB clarified that for a petition to be timely, it must be *received* by the board within the statutory period, not merely mailed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCABWCJLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5903Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10507Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10508Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10845
References
Case No. ADJ8501790
Regular
Jul 29, 2015

Kelly Chase vs. St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding of industrial injury for a professional hockey player against the St. Louis Blues. The WCAB found insufficient connection to California for jurisdiction, citing the player's limited games in the state compared to his overall career. This decision followed the precedent set in *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*, which requires a legitimate and substantial connection to the state for jurisdiction. The WCAB concluded that 21 games out of 485 did not meet this standard for a cumulative injury claim.

WCABSt. Louis Blues Hockey ClubFederal Insurance CompanyADJ8501790Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationcumulative industrial injuryprofessional hockey playersubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationssubstantial medical evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,283 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