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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. 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. ADJ10069789 MF ADJ10069817 ADJ10069939
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

ANTHONY SMITH vs. TW TRANSPORTATION

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant was hired in California but signed an employment contract with a choice-of-law clause selecting Washington law and forum. The WCAB granted reconsideration, reversing the administrative law judge's prior order to adjudicate in Washington. The Board found that hiring in California is a sufficient connection to establish WCAB jurisdiction, superseding the choice-of-law clause due to California's strong public policy interest in workers' compensation claims. Therefore, the applicant's claims will be adjudicated in California.

WCABJurisdictionLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Contract of HireForum Selection ClauseChoice of Law ProvisionReconsiderationFindings of FactMcKinley v. Arizona CardinalsPalma
References
Case No. ADJ4213301 (ANA 0398168)
Regular
Apr 01, 2015

REGGIE STEPHENS vs. NASHVILLE KATS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the applicant was hired in California, establishing jurisdiction for workers' compensation claims under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305. The Board found that accepting an employment offer by telephone in California constituted hiring, regardless of subsequent contract signing elsewhere. This hiring connection was deemed sufficient to support jurisdiction, overriding contractual choice-of-law provisions that conflicted with California's public policy protecting workers' compensation rights. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCABcumulative industrial injuryoral contract of hirechoice of law provisionjurisdictioncontract of hireconditions subsequentforum selection clausepublic policy
References
Case No. ADJ7630224
Regular
Nov 29, 2012

TINA SPERBER vs. LAW OFFICES OF LISA M. PACIONE

This case involves Tina Sperber's workers' compensation claim against her employer, Law Offices of Lisa M. Pacione. The applicant, a legal assistant, sustained an injury while investigating a property related to a case, claiming implied authorization. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the applicant was not a credible witness regarding her authority. The Board agreed that the applicant lacked permission for the investigation and that the information gathered provided no benefit to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDenying ReconsiderationLegal AssistantLaw OfficesInvestigationImplied AuthorizationCredibilityBenefit to DefendantFamily Law ProceedingsAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ3250254 (ANA 0403409)
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

TROY SADOWSKI vs. CINCINNATI BENGALS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's decision finding no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's claim. The player was hired and covered by Ohio workers' compensation, and his presence in California was temporary for work. This temporary presence, combined with Ohio's reciprocal extraterritorial provisions, exempted the parties from California's workers' compensation law per Labor Code section 3600.5(b). The Board relied on its en banc decision in *Carroll v. Cincinnati Bengals* which established these exemption criteria.

Subject Matter JurisdictionLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Temporary Presence ExceptionExtraterritorial ProvisionsOhio Workers' Compensation LawCincinnati BengalsProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Industrial InjuryReconsiderationEn Banc Decision
References
Case No. ADJ7593509
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

ELLIS WYMS vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ACE/PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, rescinding the prior decision and returning the case for further proceedings. This action was based on the defendant's contention that a mandatory forum selection clause in the applicant's employment contracts required claims to be filed in Florida. The Appeals Board cited its en banc decision in *McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals*, which established that the central issue is whether California should enforce such a clause, not merely whether it has jurisdiction. Upon remand, both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding the enforceability of the forum selection clause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding and AwardFootball PlayerForum Selection ClauseMcKinley v. Arizona CardinalsEn Banc DecisionCumulative Industrial InjuryEmployment ContractsMandatory Forum Selection
References
Case No. ADJ2140586
Regular
Sep 01, 2009

ARMANDO AVILA-GONZALEZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board reversed a WCJ's decision to reopen a case, finding no "good cause" based on a purported change in law. The WCJ had relied on the *Vera* case to apply an older disability rating schedule, but subsequent appellate decisions created a conflict, not a definitive change, in the law. The Board determined *Vera* remained citable and that the evidence did not support reopening or a finding of permanent disability. Therefore, the applicant's petition to reopen was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to ReopenGood CauseChange in LawVera v. WCABPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code Section 4660(d)Permanent and Stationary StatusMedical Reports
References
Case No. ADJ6690678
Regular
May 24, 2012

PEDRO RAMIREZ vs. PCL CONSTRUCTION, RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

In **Ramirez v. PCL Construction**, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, finding no basis to grant the removal. Notably, the WCAB clarified that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) is not involved, and therefore, a reference to "other insurance" in the judge's report was disregarded. The decision effectively upholds the status quo of the case as determined by the administrative law judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ ReportDenying RemovalCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAOther InsuranceAdministrative Law JudgeLabor LawIndustrial Accident
References
Case No. ADJ6426842
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

DAN FIKE vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS/CLEVELAND BROWNS

This case concerns a claim for cumulative industrial injury by a professional football player against his former employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision that California lacked jurisdiction over the claim. This was based on Labor Code section 3600.5(b), which exempts employees hired outside California and temporarily working within the state, provided the employer has extraterritorial coverage with another state that reciprocally exempts California. The employer, the Browns, successfully demonstrated these conditions were met under Ohio law.

Labor Code section 3600.5extraterritorial provisionsregularly employedtemporarily in Californiahired outside of Californiaself-insured employerOhio workers' compensation lawsCalifornia workers' compensation lawcumulative industrial injuryprofessional football player
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,753 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