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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ9473670
Regular
Nov 02, 2020

SANDRA UYAGUARI GARCIA vs. CLAUDIA MENDOZA Dba SWEET MELODY EXPRESS, UEBTF

This case concerns an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained while cleaning a defendant's residence. The primary issue was whether the applicant was an employee of the defendant's business, Sweet Melody Express, or an independent residential employee. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not an employee of Sweet Melody Express at the time of the injury, deeming her services to the defendant's home to be sporadic and casual housecleaning for the individual, not the business. Therefore, her claim for workers' compensation was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEmployee StatusResidential EmployeeCasual EmploymentLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8)Burden of ProofCredibility FindingEmployer Capacity
References
Case No. ADJ6995425
Regular
Apr 27, 2012

SERGIO SANCHEZ vs. LIDA KOHANSAMEH, PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior ruling finding the applicant an employee of Lida Kohansameh. While agreeing the applicant was not an employee of Pacific Great West Construction, the Board remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial judge must now determine if the applicant is excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code sections 3351(d) and 3352(h), specifically regarding residential or casual employment and hours worked. This decision avoids a final determination on employment status and focuses on potential statutory exclusions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLida KohansamehPacific Specialty InsuranceTristar Risk ManagementSergio SanchezFindings and OrderEmployee statusPacific Great West ConstructionReport and RecommendationPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8190306
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

Silvestre Sanchez vs. Robert E. Town, Allied Insurance, A Nationwide Company

This case concerns whether an injured worker, Silvestre Sanchez, was an employee of Robert E. Town for workers' compensation purposes. The Board granted reconsideration to reverse the WCJ's finding of employment. The primary issue was whether Sanchez met the 52-hour work requirement within the 90 days preceding injury under Labor Code section 3352(h), which excludes certain residential employees. The Board found that based on conflicting testimony regarding a second payment, the applicant did not prove he worked over 52 hours, thus excluding him from coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSilvestre SanchezRobert E. TownAllied InsuranceLabor Code section 3352(h)excluded employeeresidential employee90-day perioddate of injuryFindings of Fact
References
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
Case No. ADJ8475204
Regular
Aug 19, 2015

ABEL REYES GARCIA vs. LEE LAI, STATE FARM INSURANCE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND (UEBTF)

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision finding the applicant excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). The applicant was hired by Mr. Lai as a homeowner for less than 52 hours in the 90 days prior to his injury, and his duties were incidental to the maintenance of a residential dwelling, not Mr. Lai's business. The majority found that applicant's work at Mr. Lai's personal residence did not fall within the course of Mr. Lai's alleged business of managing rental properties. The dissenting opinion argued that Mr. Lai's management of multiple rental properties and arrangement of work for the applicant constituted a business, making the applicant an employee rather than an excluded casual residential employee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundLabor Code Section 3352(h)Casual Residential EmployeeCourse of Trade Business Profession OccupationHomeowner's InsuranceIndependent Contractor PresumptionReconsiderationFindings of FactCredibility Determination
References
Case No. ADJ7776766
Regular
Mar 22, 2012

ABELARDO MORALES vs. EVANGELINA NICHOLAS, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior award. The Board found the applicant was not an employee under Labor Code sections 3351(d) and 3352(h) because his work as a patio builder and roof repairer was considered incidental to the ownership and use of a dwelling, and he worked less than 52 hours for the homeowner. Therefore, the applicant was excluded from workers' compensation coverage.

Labor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)incidental to dwelling usehomeowner employee exclusioncasual or minor activityremodeling workresidential dwellingworkers' compensation schemePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
Case No. VNO 0470470
Regular
May 12, 2008

GERARDO RAMIREZ vs. WILLIAM ALONSO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning applicant Gerardo Ramirez's employment status at the time of his injury. The Board rescinded the previous findings, finding the evidence insufficient to support dual employment and needing clarification on whether applicant was a casual employee, which might affect his eligibility for benefits. The case was returned to the trial level for additional evidence gathering, including a review of the defendant's insurance policy for the property where the injury occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Fundindustrial injuryright major extremitydefendant's contentiondual employmentthreshold issueemployment relationshippresumption of employmentjoint venture
References
Case No. ADJ7874903
Regular
Feb 22, 2018

Abraham Gonzalez vs. Jose Echeverry, Echeverry Family Trust

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the trial judge's finding that the applicant was not an employee. The applicant claimed an industrial injury while working as a laborer for the defendant, who was uninsured. The core issue was whether the applicant was an employee or an independent contractor, with the defense arguing an exemption under Business and Professions Code section 7048 for jobs under $500. The WCAB found the record insufficient, particularly regarding the total contract price of the project, and returned the case for further development and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7874903Abraham GonzalezJose EcheverryEcheverry Family TrustOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindingsregular hourly employeeemployment relationshipuninsured
References
Case No. ADJ7994981
Regular
Feb 19, 2013

Timothy Sabedra vs. Magic Messenger, Inc., Gallagher Bassett Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior decision, finding the applicant, Timothy Sabedra, was an employee of Magic Messenger, Inc. The Board found that despite a transportation agreement designating Sabedra as an independent contractor, Magic Messenger exercised sufficient control over his work. Key factors included the provision of employee handbooks, mandated uniforms, start times, and dispatch radio use, all indicating an employer-employee relationship.

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusRight to Control TestBorello TestTruck DriverMagic Messenger Inc.Gallagher Bassett ServicesTimothy SabedraLabor Code Section 3351
References
Showing 1-10 of 655 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