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. ADJ2408088 (LAO 0840556)
Regular
Nov 30, 2009

, SCOTT BOWEN, vs. , TAYLOR CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.; and TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

The WCAB denied reconsideration of the decision finding the applicant's average weekly earnings (AWE) to be $403.29. The WCJ's decision on AWE was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ2408088LAO 0840556Scott BowenTaylor Contracting ServicesInc.TIG Specialty Insurance CompanyOpinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ9065210
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

WILLIAM JOHNS vs. BEN F. SMITH, AIG, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Defendant Zurich North America sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision awarding applicant benefits for injuries sustained as a carpenter. Zurich contested the date of injury, arguing it predated their coverage and denied due process by deferring this issue. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken because the WCJ failed to issue findings on all controverted issues, specifically the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineRight HipBilateral KneesLower ExtremitiesCarpenter
References
Case No. ADJ6781238
Regular
Mar 08, 2013

JORGE MORA vs. CLP RESOURCES, INC., ESIS

This case involved a carpenter, Jorge Mora, who sustained an industrial injury to his left hand while employed by CLP Resources, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's prior decision finding that the injury was proximately caused by CLP Resources' serious and willful misconduct. The WCAB also upheld the WCJ's determination that the serious and willful misconduct claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied, affirming the original award of compensation and attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and willful misconductIndustrial injuryCarpenterLeft hand injuryStatute of limitationsCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ2186877 (VNO 0533117)
Regular
Jun 29, 2010

JODY LATOUF vs. STUMBAUGH & ASSOCIATES, INC., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY as Administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, LTD., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded an arbitrator's findings due to an incomplete record, specifically the absence of a Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence. TIG Specialty Insurance Company sought reconsideration, arguing the arbitrator erred in asserting WCAB jurisdiction over a mandatory "carve out" program for carpenters. The WCAB remanded the case for the arbitrator to create a proper record and issue a new decision on the coverage dispute. Additionally, the Van Nuys District Office will consider the submitted Compromise and Release Agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryStumbaugh & AssociatesInc.TIG Specialty Insurance CompanyRisk Enterprise ManagementState Compensation Insurance FundLabor Code § 3201.5Carve Out ProgramAlternate Dispute Resolution
References
Case No. VEN 0121765, OXN 0126302, OXN 0126303, OXN 0126304
Regular
Jan 29, 2008

WILLIAM STARR vs. TOM'S AWNINGS & PATIO ENCLOSURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that consolidated multiple injuries and awarded 81 percent permanent disability. The Board rescinded the decision and returned the case for further proceedings, citing a recent en banc decision that limited the application of the *Wilkinson* principle for combining disabilities from separate injuries. This decision impacts how combined permanent disability and apportionment are determined under current statutory requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardCommutationWCJIndustrial InjuryRight Major ShoulderCarpenter InstallerNeck InjuryBilateral Lower Extremities/Knees
References
Case No. ADJ1930275 (LAO 0856552)
Regular
Aug 19, 2019

Juan Ledesma vs. Nelson Martinez, Amador Estrada, Sara Montenegro

This case concerns Applicant Juan Ledesma's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on December 4, 2004, while working as a drywall installer. The initial decision denied benefits, finding intoxication barred recovery under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior order and finding that Applicant did sustain injury to multiple body parts. The Board determined the defendants failed to prove Applicant's intoxication was a substantial or proximate cause of his injury, therefore section 3600(a)(4) did not bar recovery, deferring other issues.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderintoxication defenseproximate causesubstantial factoraffirmative defensepre-ponderance of the evidencesubstantial evidenceAOE/COE
References
Case No. ADJ9871891
Regular
Jun 13, 2019

MICHAEL SANABRIA vs. PERFORMANCE PLUS INSTALLATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal filed by the defendant. Removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The Board also noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is ultimately issued. Additionally, the defendant's attorneys were admonished for improperly attaching documents to the petition.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdjudication FileEvidentiary RecordWCJ ReportExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ2186877 (VNO 0522117)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JODY LATOUF vs. STUMBAUGH & ASSOCIATES, INC., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY as administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, LTD., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied TIG Specialty Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. TIG claimed its policy only covered non-carpenter employees at the LAUSD site. However, TIG failed to present the policy as evidence at either arbitration hearing. Therefore, the Board inferred the policy did cover the applicant's employment, upholding the arbitrator's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportSite-Specific PolicyEvidenceCoverage IssueInferenceTIG Specialty Insurance CompanyStumbaugh & AssociatesInc.
References
Case No. ADJ3959447 (AHM 0138619) ADJ3200673 (AHM 0135036)
Regular
Sep 26, 2019

RICHARD DILLON vs. GENERAL INSTALLATION COMPANY, QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE, ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal in the case of Richard Dillon v. General Installation Company. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur, and reconsideration is insufficient. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate these grounds, based on the WCJ's report on the merits of the arguments. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyAdverse DecisionCalifornia Workers' CompensationCase Number ADJ3959447
References
Case No. ADJ9016280
Regular
Jan 28, 2015

WALTER FLORES vs. R \u0026 D CUBICLE INSTALLATION, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CNA CLAIMPLUS, INC.

In *Flores v. R & D Cubicle Installation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The WCAB found that the petition was filed on December 3, 2014, which was more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was served on November 4, 2014. California law strictly enforces the jurisdictional deadline of 20 days for filing a petition for reconsideration, with a potential five-day extension for mailing. The WCAB reiterated that the timely filing of such a petition is a jurisdictional requirement, and untimely petitions cannot be granted.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor Code section 5903Filing DeadlineJurisdictionalAppeals BoardWCJ's DecisionServiceMailing Extension
References
Showing 1-10 of 72 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