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. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
References
10
Case No. BGN 63300; BGN 63301 BGN 63302; BGN 63303
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

HARDISTENE HOWARD vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, RTD; TRAVELERS

The applicant filed a "Petition the Court for Judge Dismissal" alleging a violation of Labor Code section 5312 by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board treated this as a petition for disqualification, but dismissed it because it lacked the required affidavit of disqualification and did not state grounds for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311Petition for removalLabor Code section 5310WCAB Rule 10452Mandatory settlement conferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnrepresented applicantProof of service
References
0
Case No. SAC 0315585
Regular
Sep 18, 2007

Bradley Dorigo vs. State of California, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case concerns the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund's (SIF) liability for an applicant's vocational rehabilitation counselor fees. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award requiring SIF to reimburse a portion of the vocational expert's fees, despite SIF's arguments that it was not liable for such costs. The Board cited prior writ-denied cases and relevant statutes, including Code of Civil Procedure section 1028 and Labor Code section 5708, to support its decision.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundVocational rehabilitation expertLabor Code section 4751Compromise and releaseStipulated awardPermanent disabilityReimbursementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCode of Civil Procedure section 1028
References
3
Case No. ADJ6905239
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ROBERT GARRISON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The applicant filed a petition seeking to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, along with the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that the petition did not establish valid grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing that expressions of opinion in official duties or erroneous rulings do not constitute bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionState of Mind Evincing EnmityWCAB Rule 10960Affidavit or DeclarationTimely Filing
References
10
Case No. ADJ8276740
Regular
Sep 19, 2012

Kim Jaszewski vs. The Regents of the University of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a take-nothing award, finding the applicant's claim untimely. The applicant argued that short-term disability payments tolled the one-year statute of limitations, but failed to provide evidence of such payments. Furthermore, the employer's denial of the claim on March 23, 2011, provided a clear date from which the one-year filing period began to run. The Board also rejected the applicant's attorney's attempt to seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, as it does not grant relief from jurisdictional deadlines like statutes of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplication for Adjudication of Claimstatute of limitationstollingshort-term disability benefitsdenial of claimLabor Code section 5405Code of Civil Procedure section 473jurisdictional deadlinecumulative trauma injury
References
20
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ456440 (ANA 0402548) ADJ7979843
Regular
Feb 03, 2014

GLENN MORASH vs. C & B TOWING AND TRANSPORT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal because the Order of Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution was a final order, making reconsideration, not removal, the appropriate remedy. The applicant's argument that the Board could set aside the dismissal under Labor Code section 5803 or equity powers under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 was rejected. The Board also admonished the applicant's attorney to file more coherent and specific petitions in the future.

Petition for RemovalOrder of DismissalLack of ProsecutionLabor Code section 5803inherent equity powerCode of Civil Procedure section 473Section 5900(a)aggrievedfinal orderreconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ7872785
Regular
Mar 14, 2014

CLAUDE TOLBERT vs. SUPERIOR TRANSPORT COMPANY, LLC, FIRST COMP

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Superior Transport Company, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than 25 days after the December 11, 2013 award. Despite the dismissal, the matter is returned to the trial level. The WCJ will now determine whether the stipulations can be set aside under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 or reopened under Labor Code section 5803.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyReport and RecommendationWCJLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013StipulationsSet Aside
References
0
Case No. SRO 112972
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

STELLA JUAREZ vs. ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, NELSON STAFFING, CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY by REM, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) has the right to seek contribution from Centre Insurance Company for workers' compensation benefits paid to an applicant with a cumulative trauma injury. CIGA's claim is not barred by the one-year limitation period for employer contribution claims under Labor Code section 5500.5(e), as CIGA is not an employer and Centre is considered "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). Therefore, the Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration and reversed the arbitrator's decision, awarding CIGA contribution from Centre.

CIGAContributionReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderLabor Code section 5500.5Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Cumulative TraumaGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerOther Insurance
References
8
Case No. ADJ3630039 (MON 0266628)
Regular
Sep 24, 2013

GWENDOLYN MATTHEWS-BROWN vs. TOTAL AMERICA; LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Gwendolyn Matthews-Brown against Total America and Liberty Mutual. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition. The dismissal was based on two procedural defects: the petition was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902 and it was not properly served on all parties on the official address record per California Code of Regulations section 10505. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and ordered it dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Serve PartiesOfficial Address RecordCalifornia Code Regulations title 8 section 10505DismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,468 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