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. ADJ8132311
Regular
Aug 12, 2019

Celia Kalbaugh vs. County of Kern

This case involves a claim by Celia Kalbaugh for 100% permanent disability due to a psyche injury sustained as a Deputy Detentions Officer. The defendant, County of Kern, contested the findings, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner was unqualified to assess employability and that the applicant was capable of vocational rehabilitation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original award, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the Agreed Medical Examiner's findings of profound cognitive deficits preventing work were persuasive. The Board also found the applicant's vocational consultant's opinion, supporting unsuitability for rehabilitation and the open labor market, credible.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCelia KalbaughCounty of KernPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Orders and Awardpermanent disabilityDeputy Detentions Officerpsyche injuryAgreed Medical Examinervocational rehabilitation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Da Silva v. Kinsho International Corp.

Plaintiff Celia Da Silva sued her former employer Kinsho International Corporation and its Treasurer Haruo Maruyama, alleging racial and national origin discrimination under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law (HRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) following her termination. The central issue was whether Kinsho Int’l, potentially with its parent company Kinsho Mataichi Corp., qualified as an "employer" under Title VII's fifteen-employee requirement. Following a hearing, the court determined that Kinsho Int’l and Kinsho Mataichi did not constitute a "single employer," leading to the dismissal of Da Silva's Title VII claims. The court then exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. A jury subsequently returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendants, and the court clarified that the employee count under Title VII is a merits-based, not jurisdictional, question.

DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawSingle Employer DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionMerits-Based DismissalSupplemental JurisdictionNew York State Human Rights LawNational Origin DiscriminationRacial Discrimination
References
20
Case No. ADJ8 100720
Regular
Jun 15, 2016

CELIA PEREZ DE PRECIADO vs. ROSS STORES, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves an applicant, Celia Perez de Preciado, seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration due to the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not the district office. The order also clarifies that trial-level documents unrelated to the reconsideration petition should continue to be e-filed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDROSS STORESINC.SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISIONOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERSELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EAMS)
References
1
Case No. ADJ3442379 (OXN 0140128)
Regular
Jun 25, 2015

CELIA RAMOS vs. LEE'S MAINTENANCE SERVICE, INC., CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Travelers' Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the arbitrator's decision. The arbitrator found that Travelers was responsible for 58% contribution to Clarendon for applicant Celia Ramos's cumulative trauma injury. Travelers argued the date of injury was incorrect, but the arbitrator correctly determined it based on the concurrence of disability and knowledge, which occurred when the applicant underwent wrist surgery. The Board adopted the arbitrator's reasoning, incorporating it into their order.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportPetition for ContributionCumulative Trauma InjuryDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityModified Duties
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00612 [191 AD3d 1088]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Clancy v. Park Line Asphalt Maintenance

Celia Clancy, an office manager, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, asserting that her repetitive work activities for Park Line Asphalt Maintenance aggravated her pre-existing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and herniated cervical discs, causing a disability. Although she had a history of these conditions and had received prior Social Security disability benefits and undergone multiple surgeries, she had returned to full duty work. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed her claim, concluding that her conditions were not dormant and nondisabling prior to her employment with Park Line, thus precluding an occupational disease claim based on exacerbation. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that her pre-existing conditions were disabling in a compensation sense before the alleged disablement date. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division's determination.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeHerniated Cervical DiscsPre-existing ConditionAggravation of ConditionDormant and Nondisabling ConditionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemandOffice Manager
References
10
Case No. ADJ12906916
Regular
Feb 25, 2025

Celia Clara Bautista vs. Cal Central Harvesting, Inc.

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding industrial injury to the applicant in the form of uterine cancer and to the right foot. Defendant contended the WCJ erred by relying on Dr. Lonky's opinions, arguing his specialty was not relevant and he did not adequately consider exposure and latency periods. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the medical record needed further development from additional specialists (oncology, gastroenterology, orthopedics) and supplemental reporting or testimony from Dr. Lonky, thus deferring the issues of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryUterine CancerRight Foot InjuryPulmonologyToxicologyLatency PeriodPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ7992080
Regular
Sep 18, 2014

CELIA LEMUS vs. AERO ELECTRIC CONNECTOR, TRAVELERS DIAMON BAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding the defendant acted in bad faith. The defendant failed to timely pay interpreter invoices or provide a valid objection within 60 days, violating Labor Code section 4622 and AD Rule 9795.4. The case is returned to the WCJ to determine reasonable expenses, attorney's fees, and costs under Labor Code section 5813. The WCJ will also reconsider sanctions against the lien claimant.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and Notice of Intention to Impose SanctionsWCJindustrial cumulative trauma injurymachine operatorinterpreting servicesbad faith actionsLabor Code section 5813frivolous delay tactics
References
3
Case No. ADJ3442379
Regular
Sep 26, 2013

CELIA RAMOS vs. LEE'S MAINTENANCE SERVICES, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimant True MRI Medical Center. The lien was dismissed by the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) for failure to pay the required lien activation fee, which was clearly stated in the order. The WCJ's report found the lien claimant's contentions regarding ambiguity, unresolved case-in-chief, and denial of due process to be frivolous, as the case was resolved by compromise and release and notice of the lien conference was properly served. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and admonished the lien claimant regarding future misrepresentation.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Denying PetitionLien ClaimantLien ConferenceElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Activation FeeCompromise and ReleaseDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDue ProcessWCJ Report
References
0
Case No. POM 0264727POM 0267166
Regular
Aug 19, 2008

CELIA MUNOZ vs. THE TOWN CLUB, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY/GAB ROBINS

Here's a summary of the provided case excerpts: In *Fiducia*, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found applicant sustained industrial injuries but had failed to attend medical exams and hearings, leading to dismissal for good cause. The Board vacated the prior dismissal and remanded for further development of the record, acknowledging that the applicant's failure to attend examinations and hearings warranted dismissal. However, due to lack of current medical evidence, the Board vacated the dismissal and returned the case to the trial level to allow applicant to attend examinations and hearings. In *Munoz*, the defendant sought reconsideration of an order vacating submission and returning the case to the trial calendar to further develop the evidentiary record concerning a lien claimant's charges. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order and denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The Board emphasized that interlocutory orders to further develop evidence are not subject to reconsideration.

WCABindustrial injurypsycheTMJnasal traumateethblood pressuredismissalgood causetemporary disability
References
12
Case No. ADJ8248586
Regular
Oct 16, 2018

CELIA ESCAMILLA vs. SANTA BARBARA ZOO, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal to the Appeals Board to challenge the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order appointing physicians to evaluate the applicant's internal and psychological injury claims. The defendant argued this appointment was unjustified and would cause prejudice and irreparable harm due to additional evaluation costs. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding the defendant failed to establish significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that the ALJ acted within their authority under Labor Code section 5701. Removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this instance.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 5310WCJ orderregular physiciansinternal injurypsychological injurygood causeprejudiceirreparable harmmedical evaluations
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 16 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