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. LAO 873064, LAO 875477
Regular
Feb 15, 2008

DIANA VASQUEZ vs. CHOICE ONE FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision, remanding the case to the trial level. The Board found that while the applicant's specific injury notification after termination was valid, the date of the claimed cumulative trauma injury was not determined, making it unclear if it was barred by post-termination claim defenses. Therefore, the case must be further developed to determine the date of injury and apply the relevant statutes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiana VasquezChoice One FoodsZurich North Americanon-compensable injuriesaoe/coeright hand injuryright upper extremity injurypsyche injuryLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)
References
Case No. ADJ4306808 (AHM 0061728)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

DEBRA CRAWFORD vs. GUIDANT CORPORATION, ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied One Beacon Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration regarding applicant Debra Crawford's cumulative injury. The Board affirmed the earlier decision establishing August 22, 1996, as the date of injury, which shifts liability from CIGA to One Beacon. The Board found sufficient evidence to support the August 22, 1996 date, despite One Beacon's arguments. Finally, the Board upheld the finding of permanent total disability, relying on persuasive medical opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412Cumulative InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeck InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityOne Beacon Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)
References
Case No. SAL 104703
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

GONZALEZ vs. GILROY FOODS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following the denial of a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal found no reasonable basis for the petition and remanded the case for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award fees for services rendered in connection with that petition. The WCAB affirmed the award of attorney's fees, clarifying that the WCJ lacks jurisdiction to approve fees under § 5801, which is the sole province of the WCAB upon remand.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeesRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCourt of AppealStipulation and AwardWCJFindings Order and Award
References
Case No. ADJ9154979; ADJ9318850; ADJ9318848; ADJ9532548
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

MARIA DEL CARMEN LOPEZ ANAYA vs. RAMONA’S FOOD GROUP, (PSI), CALIFORNIA CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ramona's Food Group's petition for removal of an order compelling it to serve all documents to a lien claimant. The Board found that Ramona's Food Group failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which are required for removal. The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, also noted the petition's procedural deficiencies, including lack of service on all parties. Consequently, the order compelling the service of documents remains in effect.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling Service of RecordWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantCompromise and ReleaseAOE/COESubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmZA Management
References
Case No. ADJ6603030
Regular
Jul 20, 2018

JEFF DEATON vs. SUPERIOR AMERICAN FLEET, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the petition, upholding a prior finding that one-on-one sitter services provided by a lien claimant were reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The defendant argued the WCJ erred in disregarding utilization review and a preferred provider organization agreement, but the WCAB found these arguments unpersuasive. The WCAB also noted the defendant waived the issue of a second review of medical bills by failing to raise it earlier.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWCJlien claimantCare Meridianone-on-one sitter servicesreasonable and necessary medical treatmentpenaltyLabor Code 4603.2
References
Case No. POM 0290497
Regular
Feb 22, 2008

WALID THOMAS vs. KAZI FOODS, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Walid Thomas's petition for reconsideration of a decision that found his alleged back and hernia injuries sustained while employed by Kazi Foods were not industrial. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, who found Dr. Hajj's opinion to be substantial medical evidence supporting this conclusion. The judge also found Thomas's testimony not credible due to his extensive prior medical history of similar back injuries and a hernia.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedIndustrial injuryDr. Hajj's opinionSubstantial medical evidenceCredibility findingPlace v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Kazi FoodsInc.
References
Case No. GRADE
Regular
Dec 09, 2009

KIM VUKCEVICH vs. SAFEWAY, INC., WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, ACE INSURANCE

The Appeals Board reverses the WCJ’s decision that Whole Foods must reimburse Safeway for benefits paid to the applicant. The Board finds that Safeway failed to prove a second cumulative trauma injury by substantial medical evidence.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryLeft shoulderSafewayWhole FoodsACE InsuranceReimbursementMedical evidenceBurden of proofQualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
Case No. ADJ2516908
Regular
Feb 23, 2010

LETICIA TAPIA-SERRATO vs. MISSION FOODS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, INC., CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves Mission Foods (defendant) petitioning for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The defendant claimed a mutual mistake regarding the EDD lien in a Compromise and Release agreement. However, the Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report that found no mutual mistake. The defendant admitted awareness of the EDD lien and signed an agreement making them responsible for all liens.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMISSION FOODSAMERICAN HOME ASSURANCECHARTIS CLAIMSINC.LETICIA TAPIA-SERRATOORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONEDD LIENCOMPROMISE AND RELEASEMUTUAL MISTAKE
References
Case No. ADJ3512839 (VNO 0509649)
Regular
Jul 27, 2010

KEIUNTA DIXON vs. APPLE ONE, ACE USA, Administered By ESIS, INC., AIG SUN AMERICA/NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Administered By CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

In *Dixon v. Apple One*, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and the need for further review. This action allows for a more thorough examination of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. The Board will subsequently issue a Decision After Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersFrank M. BrassAlfonso U. Moresi
References
Showing 1-10 of 949 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