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. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. ADJ1463963 (POM 0273971 ADJ3120431 (POM 0268474)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

RUBEN ORTIZ vs. LINKS-NILSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, DAART ENGINEERING, XL FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Ruben Ortiz seeking workers' compensation benefits. The primary issue is whether the applicant's injuries from a specific incident are compensable under workers' compensation law. The litigation involves multiple defendants, including the applicant's employer, its insurer (in liquidation), and the California Insurance Guarantee Association, alongside other entities. The core dispute centers on the causal link between the employment and the claimed injuries. The outcome will determine the extent of benefits Ortiz is entitled to and the responsibility of the named defendants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantLinks-Nilsen CorporationCalifornia Compensation Insurance CompanyliquidationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationDaart EngineeringXL Fire ProtectionState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
15
Case No. GRO 0021432
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

Theodore Maiso vs. State of California, Department of Mental Health, State Compensation Insurance Fund, State Contract Services

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by applicant Theodore Maiso against the State of California, Department of Mental Health. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report and reasoning. The Board also corrected a technicality by ordering the substitution of "State of California, Division of Workers' Compensation, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" in place of "State of California, Division of Workers' Compensation" in the WCJ's decision headings to accurately reflect the judicial authority.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDTheodore MaisoState of California Department of Mental HealthLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdjusting AgencyOrder Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeJudicial AuthorityOriginal Jurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2013

Claim of Hunter v. Tops Market, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant had an established workers' compensation claim for right carpal tunnel syndrome, with a later diagnosis of left carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite a 10% schedule loss of use for the right hand, the employer's request to transfer liability was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the case was never truly closed because issues regarding the left carpal tunnel syndrome remained unresolved, as evidenced by a doctor's report. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further compensation proceedings were still contemplated, thereby preventing the transfer of liability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseTransfer of LiabilityCase ClosureBoard Decision AffirmedAppellate DivisionNerve Conduction Study
References
7
Case No. ADJ2300229 (FRE 0183072) ADJ2635018 (FRE 0183073) ADJ3725774 (FRE 0183074)
Regular
Jul 19, 2016

ROBERT D. TULL vs. GENERAL LIGHTING SERVICE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION, In Liquidation

This case concerns Robert D. Tull's workers' compensation claims against General Lighting Service and the California Insurance Guarantee Association. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration. Pending their Decision After Reconsideration, all future communications related to these cases must be directed to the Board's San Francisco office. This order reflects a procedural step in the ongoing appeals process for Tull's claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationLiquidationDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersMullen & FilippiService by MailDouglas LowRobert D. Tull
References
0
Case No. B167017
Significant
Nov 18, 2004

General Casualty Insurance and Regent Insurance, Joseph A. Lane, American Home Assurance Company vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and California Insurance Guarantee Association

The court has requested responses from the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB) and the California Insurance Commissioner regarding the exclusion of special employees from a special employer's workers' compensation policy, specifically questioning the use and requirements of Form No. 11 for this purpose.

WCIRBForm No. 11limiting endorsementsrestricting endorsementsspecial employeesgeneral employerstemporary employeesleased employeesInsurance CommissionerCalifornia Code of Regulations
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Palazzolo v. Dutchess County

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left arm in July 2000. Although no lost wages were claimed initially, diagnostic tests were authorized, and issues of permanency and average weekly wages remained unresolved, with a directive for the employer to provide payroll records. In 2013, after claimant sought further medical treatment, the employer requested to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing the statutory time limits had elapsed. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, finding the case was never truly closed due to outstanding issues and unfulfilled directives. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being considered truly closed for the purpose of shifting liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferCase ClosureOutstanding IssuesPermanency DeterminationAverage Weekly WagesPayroll RecordsAppellate ReviewNew York Labor Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2004

Belleville v. Madame Pirie's, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991 and began receiving workers' compensation benefits. After a third-party personal injury action settlement in 1994, the case was closed in October 1998 with no present deficiency for compensation payments. In 2004, the case was reopened due to a possible new causally connected injury. A WCLJ found no compensable lost time from April 1998 to July 2004, authorized medical treatment, and directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was responsible. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding that the time periods specified in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (8) were met due to the passage of time without compensation payment in a closed case, and no application for deficiency compensation was made upon reopening. The Special Fund appealed, and the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability ShiftWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aThird-Party SettlementBack InjuryDeficiency CompensationMedical Treatment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 27,911 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