Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ10110995

Regular

Oct 14, 2020

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE HARTFORD

The applicant, Preston Lee Brown Scott, was declared a vexatious litigant in 2018 and is subject to a pre-filing order. This order requires him to obtain prior approval from a judge before filing any documents with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). He has filed multiple petitions for reconsideration without this approval. The WCAB has reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances to warrant acceptance. Therefore, the documents submitted by Mr. Scott are not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRule 10430Rule 10782In pro perPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication of claimDeclaration of readinessPleading

References

Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)

Regular

Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances

References

Case No. ADJ18067229

Regular

Jul 10, 2025

RAY GUTIERREZ vs. CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC.; PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC. and PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (Defendants) regarding the continuation of home health care for applicant RAY GUTIERREZ. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to show a change in the applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify terminating previously authorized ongoing home health care, citing the principles established in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm. The decision also clarified the applicability of Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timeline for acting on reconsideration petitions, which was met by the Board. Commissioner Razo dissented, arguing Patterson should not apply due to the initial limited authorization and that a change in circumstances was evident.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Utilization ReviewPatterson v. The Oaks FarmRequest for AuthorizationChange of CircumstancesHome Health CareMedical NecessityWCJ Report

References

Case No. ADJ8750816

Regular

Jul 31, 2014

KAMIKA BEASLEY vs. SECURITAS, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing the prior denial of a change of venue. The applicant demonstrated good cause by residing in Vallejo, her injury occurring in Sacramento, and no longer having an attorney in the original Anaheim venue. Therefore, the case venue was changed to the Oakland district office, and the trial was continued.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgePetition to Change VenuePetition for Change of VenueGood CauseMandatory Settlement ConferenceApplication for Adjudication of ClaimIndustrial Injury

References

Case No. ADJ11509125, ADJ11509591, ADJ13194436

Regular

Dec 15, 2020

ALEX MEJIA vs. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, CORVEL

The Appeals Board granted Lineage Logistics' petition for removal, rescinding an order that changed venue for claim ADJ13194436 to Long Beach. The Board found the record procedurally confused, noting conflicting actions by different district offices and an order that incorrectly stated parties jointly agreed to the venue change despite an objection. The matter is returned to the trial level to address consolidation and proper venue for all three applicant claims.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueConsolidation of ClaimsProcedural ConfusionAdjudication NumbersDistrict OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaPetition to ConsolidateNotice of Intention to Change Venue

References

Case No. ADJ10857876; ADJ10857882

Regular

Mar 06, 2023

MINNIE BYRD vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Board rescinded the prior order, finding the defendant failed to prove a change in circumstances justifying the termination of applicant's home healthcare provider, Myra Shaw. The defendant must pay Ms. Shaw for services rendered, and the matter is returned for further proceedings. Applicant's objection to exhibits 12 and 13 was overruled.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMinnie ByrdCity of Los AngelesOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJhome healthcare servicesMyra ShawExhibits 12 and 13change in circumstances

References

Case No. ADJ226850 (RIV 0064373)

Regular

Oct 31, 2017

DEBRA CHADWELL vs. SCULLY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) overturned a prior decision, ruling that defendants must reinstate home health care and skilled nursing services for the applicant. The defendants had unilaterally terminated these previously authorized services without demonstrating a change in the applicant's condition or circumstances. The WCAB found that once authorized, such services must continue unless the employer proves they are no longer medically necessary. Therefore, the defendants are obligated to provide the services as recommended by the applicant's physician.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewNon-certificationHome Health CareSkilled Nursing ServicesPrimary Treating PhysicianUnilateral TerminationChange in CircumstancesReconsiderationIndustrial Injury

References

Case No. ADJ295449 (EUR 0039208)

Regular

Mar 09, 2009

LISA CASAGRANDE vs. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to partially reverse the WCJ's decision, affirming the award of Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) but rescinding the Labor Code section 5814 penalty on VRMA and attorney's fees under section 5814.5. While the Board agreed VRMA was owed due to changed circumstances, it found the employer's delay was not unreasonable, thus negating grounds for penalties or additional fees. The Board also upheld the allowance of the Employment Development Department's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Employment Development Department (EDD) lienmodified employmentRU-94RU-105unreasonable delaychanged circumstances

References

Case No. ADJ2128084 (VNO 0428792) ADJ1712801 (VNO 0428794) ADJ346332 (VNO 0428790) ADJ6882145

Regular

Feb 07, 2017

NAYER GARAS vs. RXI PLASTICS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's order for continuing home health care, finding the record insufficient to support the decision. Although the parties stipulated to timely utilization review denials, the specific RFAs forming the basis for these denials were not adequately documented in the record. The Board determined it could not ascertain whether the defendant's reliance on UR was inappropriate or if the applicant's care was improperly terminated without a change in circumstances. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop a complete record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationHome Health CareUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationTreating PhysicianAdministrative Law JudgeLiver TransplantMedical Necessity

References

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

Showing 1-10 of 623 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ10110995

Regular

Oct 14, 2020

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE HARTFORD

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRule 10430Rule 10782In pro perPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication of claimDeclaration of readinessPleading

References

Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)

Regular

Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances

References

Case No. ADJ18067229

Regular

Jul 10, 2025

RAY GUTIERREZ vs. CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC.; PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

References

Case No. ADJ8750816

Regular

Jul 31, 2014

KAMIKA BEASLEY vs. SECURITAS, SEDGWICK

References

Case No. ADJ11509125, ADJ11509591, ADJ13194436

Regular

Dec 15, 2020

ALEX MEJIA vs. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, CORVEL

References

Case No. ADJ10857876; ADJ10857882

Regular

Mar 06, 2023

MINNIE BYRD vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

References

Case No. ADJ226850 (RIV 0064373)

Regular

Oct 31, 2017

DEBRA CHADWELL vs. SCULLY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

References

Case No. ADJ295449 (EUR 0039208)

Regular

Mar 09, 2009

LISA CASAGRANDE vs. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT

References

Case No. ADJ2128084 (VNO 0428792) ADJ1712801 (VNO 0428794) ADJ346332 (VNO 0428790) ADJ6882145

Regular

Feb 07, 2017

NAYER GARAS vs. RXI PLASTICS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

References

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

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness

References

Showing 1-10 of 623 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.