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. 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The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings.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. 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. ADJ9074552; ADJ9074553
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

VINCENT HERNANDEZ vs. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal regarding the selection of an Occupational Medicine QME panel. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that the defendant's request for an Occupational Medicine QME panel complied with Labor Code Section 4062.2. The report reasoned that Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.1(b)'s requirement for supporting documentation for specialty changes does not invalidate a request if not provided. Additionally, the Board found the applicant's arguments regarding an unfair advantage and the WCJ's interpretation of Section 31.1 to be misplaced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJQME panelOccupational MedicineTitle 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.1Labor Code Section 4062.2Treating PhysicianPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationMedical Unit
References
1
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 11,189 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