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. ADJ3274521 (POM 0289674)
Regular
Mar 06, 2012

ANTONIO ORTIZ (ANTONIO ORTIZ CUEVAS) vs. NEW REAL INC.; AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Antonio Ortiz's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it was filed significantly after the deadline for reconsideration. Furthermore, the petition lacked proof of service on the opposing parties, and it was deemed "skeletal" for failing to cite any facts, evidence, or legal principles from the record. The Board strongly advised the applicant to consult with the Information and Assistance Officer for future filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceUntimely FilingSkeletal PetitionLabor Code § 5900(a)California Code of Regulations § 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitService OmissionDismissal
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. 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. LAO 860448, LAO 860449
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

DAVID MORRIS vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dr. Khalid Ahmed's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed after the statutory deadline. The petition was also deemed insufficient due to its skeletal nature, lack of verification, and failure to meet regulatory requirements for supporting arguments with references to the record and law. Therefore, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely and procedurally deficient petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 10609Labor Code section 4616Labor Code section 5902Labor Code section 5903
References
Case No. ADJ4379849
Regular
Mar 06, 2012

HUGO SOTO vs. ABUNDANT LIFE AND ADOLESCENT GROWTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference on August 23, 2011, which led to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss their lien. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, noting the lien claimant incorrectly stated the date of the conference and that such inattention contributed to the dismissal. The Board emphasized that lien claimants are parties after the case-in-chief is resolved and must appear unless excused by the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantWCJ ReportNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienLien ConferenceBiocare Rx Specialty PharmacyProof of ServiceOrder of DismissalCode of Civil Procedure section 473
References
Case No. ADJ7555409
Regular
Mar 04, 2014

JESUS ESCANUELA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's untimely petition. The WCAB found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion regarding psychiatric permanent disability was not supported by substantial evidence, as it did not properly address causation under the current PDRS. Consequently, the case is remanded to the trial level for further development of the record concerning psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB deferred the issue of permanent disability and attorney's fees pending this further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJesus EscanuelaCalifornia Department of Correctionslegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ7555409Fresno District OfficeOpinion and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,118 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