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. ADJ11219652, ADJ10999793, ADJ11222341, ADJ11224032, ADJ11221292
Regular
Dec 28, 2018

JOSE BELTRAN vs. WINDSOR GARDENS HEALTHCARE CENTER, ENSTAR

The Appeals Board denied Jose Beltran's petition for removal, finding he failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Beltran had not shown a compelling need for additional discovery beyond what was already available or pursuable through the trial judge. Beltran's claims regarding procedural defects in the defendant's declaration of readiness and service were also found unpersuasive. Therefore, the petition was denied, and any further discovery needs can be addressed with the trial WCJ.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDiscoveryPrimary Treating PhysicianPanel QMEDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
2
Case No. ADJ8945825
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

LOURDES ARISTA DE BELTRAN vs. FOSTER FARMS

This case, *De Beltran v. Foster Farms*, involved a Petition for Removal that was filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition. Consequently, the Board has dismissed the petition, terminating further action on it.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFoster FarmsLourdes Arista de BeltranADJ8945825Van Nuys District OfficeOrder Dismissing PetitionSan Francisco California
References
0
Case No. ADJ10306044
Regular
Apr 20, 2018

RELENA BELTRAN vs. SAEED KESHTAR DBA ROUND TABLE PIZZA, WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Relena Beltran's Petition for Reconsideration because it was skeletal, unverified, and lacked proof of service on opposing parties. The petition failed to detail specific grounds, evidence, or legal arguments, and did not include a required verification despite notice of the defect. Furthermore, subsequent filings were also deficient and rejected under Appeals Board rules. Consequently, the Board found the petition subject to dismissal based on statutory and regulatory requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceWCJ ReportAppeals Board Rule 10848Labor Code § 5902Appeals Board Rule 10842Appeals Board Rule 10846Appeals Board Rule 10852
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Beltran

This appellate decision addresses the conviction of a defendant for sexual offenses, primarily focusing on the use of live, two-way closed-circuit television for a child witness's testimony. The court reviewed the trial court's declaration of the child as a vulnerable witness under CPL article 65, based on the child's visible distress and a social worker's testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding of vulnerability, citing the child's age and the defendant's authority, and upheld the constitutionality of the closed-circuit testimony method. Additionally, the judgment was modified to vacate and dismiss a multiplicitous count of sexual conduct against the child.

Child WitnessVulnerable WitnessClosed-Circuit Television TestimonyConfrontation ClauseConstitutional RightsSexual AbuseCriminal Procedure LawAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonySocial Worker Testimony
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beltran v. City of New York

This case involves a third-party defendant, Mulvihill Electrical Contracting Corp., moving to dismiss a third-party action filed by New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) based on the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The underlying case stems from a plaintiff's injury sustained while employed by Mulvihill, who was under contract with NYCTA. NYCTA sought indemnification or contribution from Mulvihill under common law and contract, and for breach of contract due to Mulvihill's failure to procure insurance. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 amendment regarding 'grave injury' as a bar to common-law claims. It ruled that while common-law indemnification/contribution claims are barred without grave injury, contractual indemnification claims are permissible. The court also allowed the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. Consequently, Mulvihill’s motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims was granted, but the motion to dismiss contractual claims and the breach of contract claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211Exclusivity ProvisionIndemnificationContributionBreach of ContractGrave InjuryThird-Party ClaimMotion to DismissContractual Obligation
References
7
Case No. ADJ3830182 (GOL 0100457), ADJ3775160 (GOL 0101306), ADJ1835350 (GOL 0102006)
Regular
Apr 09, 2014

JOSE BELTRAN vs. GRAHAM CHEVROLET, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the filed petition. As a result, the Board has dismissed the petition and will take no further action.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCase NumberOxnard District OfficeOrder DismissingDeputy
References
0
Case No. ADJ3319996 (LAO 0883248) ADJ952779 (LAO 0883249)
Regular
Jan 13, 2014

ARISTEO BELTRAN vs. ROBERT IEST, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant regarding a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. The WCAB believes reconsideration is necessary to thoroughly examine the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. Further proceedings may be held to clarify the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOffice of the CommissionersDecision After ReconsiderationADJ3319996
References
0
Case No. ADJ3968337 (LAO 0844136) ADJ4336885 (LAO 0805868) ADJ672008 (LAO 0805870)
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

ARMIDA BELTRAN vs. MCDONALD'S, HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by McDonald's and Hazelrigg Risk Management Services regarding deposition attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is dismissing the petition because the petitioner has withdrawn it. This withdrawal is consistent with a prior WCJ order rescinding the attorney fee orders, allowing for further discovery on deposition attorney fee payments. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJrescindeddeposition attorney fee ordersCIGAOrder of Rescissioncrossed in the mailwithdrawn petitionfurther discoveryprior payment
References
0
Case No. 0883248
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

ARISTIO BELTRAN vs. ROBERT IEST; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration that was improperly filed. The Board dismissed the petition because it was directed at an interlocutory order, not a final decision. California law and precedent establish that reconsideration petitions can only be filed after a final order, decision, or award. The Board also declined the petitioner's request to file a supplemental petition. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Board's prior decision has been dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor Code § 5900Gumilla v. Industrial Acc. Com.Safeway Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Dufault v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Ortiz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com.
References
1
Case No. ADJ8149505 ADJ8149506
Regular
Apr 10, 2018

MARTHA BELTRAN vs. KIMCO STAFFING/KIMSTAFF HR, SEDGWICK

This case involved a dispute over a hospital lien claim from Monrovia Memorial Hospital. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found insufficient evidence on the reasonableness of the hospital charges and ordered the parties to attempt to resolve it. After the hospital petitioned for reconsideration, the parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement. The Appeals Board approved the stipulation, ordering the defendant to pay Monrovia Memorial Hospital $70,000 for its lien claim. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to reimburse another lien claimant, Joyce Altman Interpreters, $13,020.90$.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersBill ReviewerStipulationsMediationWCJADJ8149505ADJ8149506
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 18 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