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. ADJ10037291
Regular
Apr 01, 2025

Adan Alvarez vs. Victor Manuel Martinez, Justine Marie Martinez

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a decision that allowed applicant Adan Alvarez to pursue a workers' compensation claim against Victor Manuel Martinez and Justine Marie Martinez despite his failure to file a proof of claim in the employers' bankruptcy proceedings. UEBTF contended that Alvarez was required to file a proof of claim in a Chapter 7 asset bankruptcy. The Appeals Board denied UEBTF's petition, affirming its prior decision. The Board distinguished this case from previous rulings, concluding that an employee's failure to file a proof of claim in bankruptcy is not fatal to their workers' compensation claim if no award exists at the time of the bankruptcy discharge.

UEBTFbankruptcyproof of claimChapter 7 assetChapter 7 no assetdischarge injunctionLabor Code section 3716Ortiz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Slali v. RuizWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ6502802
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

JOSE OLIVEIRA vs. RIVER FRONT APARTMENTS, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a maintenance worker's shoulder injury sustained on June 8, 2007. The workers' compensation judge awarded 39% permanent disability based on a qualified medical evaluator's analysis. The defendant argued this analysis, which applied the hernia chapter of the AMA Guides, was flawed and that impairment should be assessed using the upper extremity chapter. After reconsideration, the Appeals Board affirmed the original Findings and Award, adopting the judge's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurymaintenance workerleft shoulderpermanent disabilitypanel qualified medical evaluatorAMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairmenthernia chapterWhole Person Impairment
References
Case No. ADJ2738569 (LAO 0759524) ADJ553488 (LAO 0759510)
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

CONNIE ALVIZO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Permissibly Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the applicant's entitlement to 24/7 home health care. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and emphasized that the defendant failed to submit the primary treating physician's request for this care to mandatory utilization review. Citing *Sandhagen*, the Board affirmed that Labor Code § 4610 utilization review is the sole mechanism to challenge medical treatment requests. Therefore, the defendant's failure to follow this process bars their current challenge to the 24/7 home health care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardConnie AlvizoDepartment of Industrial RelationsPermissibly UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderhome health care24 hour/7 days per weeksenior legal stenographer
References
Case No. ADJ2502806 (SDO 0295752)
Regular
Jun 06, 2018

Natalia Beck, Kim Fortes vs. TWO GUYS RELOCATION SYSTEM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petitioner's request for removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's report provided sufficient analysis of the petitioner's arguments, leading to the denial of the petition. Therefore, the matter will proceed without the requested removal.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWCJ ReportSupplemental PleadingSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyCourt Appointed ReceiverChapter 7 Trustee
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ8608413
Regular
Feb 11, 2014

ANTONIO MORALES CASILLAS vs. 7-ELEVEN, MITSUI MARINE & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, administered by MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Board adopted the judge's report, which emphasized the applicant's inconsistent statements regarding the injury mechanism and the lack of corroborating evidence. The judge found the applicant's testimony not persuasive, particularly in light of subsequent work performed after the alleged incident. Therefore, reconsideration was denied.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ7-Elevencashier clerklow back injurymedical evidenceinconsistent testimonycorroborating evidencecredibility
References
Case No. ADJ4513629
Regular
May 29, 2009

Richard Galindo vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC, GROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision finding applicant sustained industrial back injury. The defendant, Broadspire, challenges the finding that the applicant was not the initial physical aggressor, citing a videotape of the incident. Reconsideration was granted to allow the Board to review this videotape, which was admitted as evidence but was not readily available. The defendant is ordered to provide the videotape to the Board within fifteen days for review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMV TransportationBroadspireCrawford Companyinitial physical aggressorLabor Code section 3600(a)(7)industrial injuryback injurybus drivervideotape evidence
References
Case No. ADJ7849757
Regular
Jul 19, 2012

CRESCENCIO REYNOSO vs. V. TERRAZAS CONTRACTING, YORK CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant, injured on January 7, 2011, must seek treatment within the employer's established and properly noticed Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant's arguments regarding MPN notification defects and the exclusion of evidence were found unmeritorious. The Board concluded the employer did not neglect or refuse to provide reasonably necessary medical treatment.

WCABADJ7849757Medical Provider NetworkMPNLabor Code 3550Labor Code 3551Labor Code 4600Labor Code 4616Self-Procured TreatmentAdministrative Director's Rules
References
Case No. ADJ9351964 ADJ9351965
Regular
Mar 15, 2016

ROGELIO CORNEJO vs. YOUNIQUE CAFÉ, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior en banc decision. The prior decision held that Chapter 20 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code did not apply to a copy service lien claimant acting as an agent or independent contractor for a lawyer. Consequently, proof of registration and bonding under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455 was deemed unnecessary in such circumstances. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYounique CaféZenith Insurance CompanyWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Rogelio CornejoPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancChapter 20Business and Professions Code
References
Case No. ADJ7188251; ADJ7188272
Regular
Dec 30, 2013

RAYMOND MARK vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's "Petition for Re-Submission of ADR Cases" for being identical to a previously dismissed petition. The WCAB cited the same reasons as the prior dismissal in their Opinion and Order. The Board warned that further attempts to obtain action in violation of Labor Code section 3201.7 may be construed as a bad faith action, potentially leading to sanctions. Therefore, the applicant's petition was dismissed.

Petition for ResubmissionRemovalLC § 3201.7ADR ARB IVBad Faith ActionSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Los AngelesPermissibly Self-Insured
References
Showing 1-10 of 267 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