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. 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. 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. LBO 0330943
Regular
Aug 25, 2008

BETTY BELL vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed because it is not taken from any "final order, decision, or award" subject to reconsideration, and removal is denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removallien claimantsubstitution of attorneyfinal orderinterlocutory orderprocedural ordersubstantive issueLabor Code § 5900
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. 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. 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. 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
Case No. ADJ10021120 ADJ8949346
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

ANTHONY BERNARD EDWARDS (Dec'd), CANDACE EDWARDS (Widow), ASHLEY EDWARDS (Daughter), ANTHONY EDWARDS, JR. (Son) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves a workers' compensation death benefit claim for Anthony Bernard Edwards, who died in the course of his employment. The dependents seek death benefits and burial expenses, which were initially awarded by the WCJ. The employer, City of Los Angeles, sought reconsideration, arguing it should receive credit for a third-party settlement the dependents obtained from Kaiser Permanente. The Board agreed to reconsider the issue of credit, specifically whether Civil Code section 3333.1 bars such credit. The Board ultimately deferred the credit issue, affirming the death benefit award and returning the matter for further proceedings to determine the applicability of Civil Code section 3333.1 and potential employer negligence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ10021120ADJ8949346death benefitsLabor Code section 4702burial expensesCivil Code section 3333.1Medical Injury Compensation Reform ActMICRAthird-party settlement
References
Case No. ADJ2432526 (MON 0226419)
Regular
May 07, 2012

PATRICIA MANDEL vs. MEDIA SERVICES, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case concerns CIGA's challenge to a WCJ's order allowing an applicant, who relocated to Connecticut, to testify via remote deposition regarding out-of-pocket expenses for an admitted industrial injury. CIGA argued this would cause prejudice and irreparable harm. The Appeals Board denied CIGA's petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that remote depositions are permissible under California law. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to proceed with the applicant's deposition and consider cost reimbursement.

CIGAPetition for RemovalOff CalendarOut-of-State DepositionLabor Code § 5811Agreed Medical EvaluatorKnee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryRemote Electronic MeansCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.310
References
Case No. ADJ897091 (STK 0214371)
Regular
Nov 10, 2009

Humberto Garcia vs. Knight Incorporated

The Appeals Board grants the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order that prevented the applicant from deposing employer witnesses on issues of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The Board finds the deposition is a reasonable method to determine the applicant's employment status.

Petition for removalLabor Code section 132aemployer discriminationtermination of employmentmedical benefits terminationdiscovery rightsdeposition of employer witnessWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgeirreparable harm
References
Showing 1-10 of 11,765 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