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. 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. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. MISC. 251
En Banc
Jul 08, 2008

Ramon B. Pellicer vs. State Bar of California

The Appeals Board denied Ramon B. Pellicer's petition to appear as a non-attorney hearing representative due to his prior disciplinary record with the State Bar, affirming that disbarred attorneys are precluded from practicing law in any capacity before the WCAB.

WCABPetition to PracticeHearing RepresentativeInvoluntary Inactive EnrollmentState Bar ActRules of Professional ConductDefaultDisciplinary ChargesPractice of LawDefrocked Attorney
References
2
Case No. ADJ7972688, ADJ7972650
Regular
Jun 04, 2014

MARIA VENTURA vs. MIRACLE SPRINGS RESORT, PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY c/o CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Maria Ventura's Petition for Removal in case number ADJ7972688, ADJ7972650. The dismissal was based on the lack of a showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as well as the Workers' Compensation Judge's prior April 17, 2014 Order. This order aligns with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10843.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmCal. Code Regs tit. 8 § 10843DismissalADJ7972688ADJ7972650Miracle Springs Resort
References
0
Case No. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
16
Case No. ADJ2547747 (POM 0221083)
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

EDUARDO VALENCIA vs. SAMICK MUSIC CORPORATION, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The petition was deficient as it was unsigned, unverified, and lacked proof of service on all parties. These defects violate Labor Code section 5902 and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10850. Even if the petition had been procedurally sound, the WCAB indicated it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseFuture Treatment LiabilityUnsigned PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10850
References
4
Case No. ADJ2946461 (OAK 0285115)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

LUCIO AGUIRRE vs. PIONEER PACKING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dr. Christopher Vaughan's petition for reconsideration. The petition failed to meet the statutory requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and California Code of Regulations title 8, section 10846. Specifically, the petition lacked specific contentions of error, references to the case record, and discussion of legal principles. As a result, the WCAB found the petition to be skeletal and therefore dismissed it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLien claimantWCJLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 §10846Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Skeletal petitionDismissal
References
1
Case No. ADJ7160968
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KIM FICK vs. WAL MART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Kim Fick, against Walmart Associates, Inc. and American Home Assurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. Furthermore, the petition was deemed skeletal and insufficient under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10846. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and ordered its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Skeletal PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10846DismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJApplicantDefendants
References
2
Case No. ADJ8791607
Regular
Apr 24, 2017

MARIA TRUJILLO vs. NYLOK LLC, ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nylok LLC's petition for reconsideration in *Trujillo v. Nylok LLC*. This dismissal was based on the failure to properly serve the petition on the adverse party, applicant Maria Trujillo or her attorney. Labor Code section 5905 mandates such service, and its absence is grounds for dismissal under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10850. Had the merits been considered, the WCAB indicated it would have denied the petition based on established precedent regarding the date of ongoing treatment services.

Petition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceAdverse PartiesDismissalLabor Code Section 5905Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 §10850Lien ClaimantOngoing TreatmentDate of ServicesAppeals Board Panel Decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,413 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