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. ADJ11396782
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

SALVADOR RODRIQUEZ-GOMEZ vs. CONTROL AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION

In *Rodriguez-Gomez v. Control Air Conditioning Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result without it, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions were met, and therefore denied the petition.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ1811902 (SJO 0228410)
Regular
Oct 31, 2008

, Applicant, Dennis K. Allgood, vs. , DALEY'S DRYWALL & TAPING, INC., and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

The Applicant sought reconsideration of a prior denial of his employer's petition, which had challenged a finding of $100\%$ permanent disability reduced by $10\%$ apportionment. The Applicant's new petition argued a substantial change in his medical condition, becoming paraplegic after the prior decisions, and also that the initial $90\%$ rating was an error. The Board denied the Applicant's petition, finding he was not aggrieved by the prior order and that the alleged new medical condition was a subsequent intervening event, not grounds for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNon-industrial injuryParaplegicTotal DisabilityNewly Discovered EvidenceLabor Code Section 5903(d)
References
0
Case No. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular
Sep 16, 2016

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration and dismissed a petition for removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the employer is liable for treatment of a non-industrial condition if it is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. The petition for removal was dismissed because reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code 4600medical treatmentcure or relievenon-industrial conditioncompensable consequenceAppeals Board Rule 10843final order
References
6
Case No. ADJ12933120
Regular
Mar 09, 2023

CHRISTINA HIRSCH vs. PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY HEALTHCARE, INC.

Here is a summary of the case for a lawyer in max 4 sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and dismissed its petition for removal. The defendant argued due process violations due to discovery closure and contested the finding of permanent total disability without apportionment. However, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding that the applicant's disabling conditions stemmed from industrial medical treatment, thus precluding apportionment under *Hikida*. The WCJ's findings of permanent and total disability were supported by substantial medical evidence, rendering the defendant's arguments regarding discovery and apportionment unpersuasive.

Permanent Total DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertDue ProcessDiscovery ClosureMedical TreatmentAllergic DermatitisComplex Regional Pain SyndromeFibromyalgiaNeuropathy
References
9
Case No. ADJ9382780
Regular
Feb 10, 2016

SANG BO LEE vs. M&J MANAGEMENT GROUPL, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a successive petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Sang Bo Lee, after a prior petition on the same issues was denied. The Appeals Board dismissed the current petition because it did not present new evidence and addressed the same arguments as the initial filing. California law generally prohibits successive petitions unless a party is newly aggrieved or the Board's decision was based on new evidence. Because neither condition was met, the applicant's petition was dismissed.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationAppeals BoardDismissalNewly aggrievedNew evidenceWrit of reviewWCJ reportNavarro v. A & A FramingGoodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com.
References
5
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. VNO 0462026
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

CASEY BRENNAN vs. WALT DISNEY IMAGINEERING, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for pulmonary injury where the employer argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, asserting the employee knew of the work-related nature of his condition by 1997. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition, finding insufficient evidence that the employee possessed both knowledge of industrial causation and disability by that date. The Board granted the employee's petition to address issues of permanent disability and apportionment, remanding the case for further development of the medical record and reconsideration of these factors.

WCABProduction DesignerPulmonary SystemPermanent DisabilityApportionmentStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 5405Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Qualified Medical EvaluatorQME
References
7
Case No. ADJ3335538 (LAO 0571596) ADJ1632949 (VNO 0178912)
Regular
Apr 09, 2009

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration but granted the defendant's petition. The Board found that the medical opinions supporting temporary total disability were inadequate, lacking sufficient reasoning and based on an incomplete medical history. Consequently, the original Findings and Award were rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings and a new decision at the trial level. The key issue is the insufficiency of Dr. Curtis's reports to establish a causal link for the claimed temporary disability after the applicant's condition was previously deemed permanent and stationary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityLabor Code section 4656Substantial EvidenceMedical OpinionReasonable Medical ProbabilityInadequate Medical History
References
13
Case No. ADJ7542088
Regular
Jun 25, 2012

TIMOTHY OAKES vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant City of Sacramento's petition for reconsideration. Simultaneously, the Board granted the applicant Timothy Oakes' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the original decision, with a minor amendment changing Finding of Fact No. 6 to state that the applicant's condition does not require further medical care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportDecision After ReconsiderationFinding of Factmedical care
References
0
Case No. ADJ1632949 (VNO 0178912) ADJ3335538 (LAO 0571596)
Regular
Apr 27, 2015

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAL BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, but granted the defendant's petition for removal. The Board found that the applicant's claim for a higher rate of Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary Disability (VRTD) benefits was barred due to a failure to timely appeal a 1992 Rehabilitation Unit decision, thus rescinding the judge's order to take this issue off calendar. The Board also upheld the judge's findings that the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary in February 1993 and that there was no compensable temporary disability from July 2014 to the present, finding insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims. The applicant was cautioned about potentially being designated a vexatious litigant due to repeated relitigation of settled issues.

Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary DisabilityVRTDPermanent and Stationary DateRemovalReconsiderationRehabilitation UnitJurisdictionRes JudicataSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 16,407 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