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. ADJ1377755 (FRE 0242857) ADJ1891281 (FRE 0242858)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

RUDOLPH GUTIERREZ vs. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE, CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant Gutierrez's petition for reconsideration of a January 19, 2010 stipulation and order. Applicant contended the settlement was not secured with his consent. The Board treated his petition as a motion to set aside the award. The case is returned to the trial level for the judge to consider the set-aside petition and conduct further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderPro SeAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedReturned to Trial LevelAwardConsent
References
Case No. ADJ9421326, ADJ9358335
Regular
May 06, 2016

IVY CHEN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

This case involves a dispute over whether the parties mutually consented to cancel their agreement to use an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for applicant Ivy Chen. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the initial order non-final. The WCAB then granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board determined that while no explicit written cancellation existed, the parties' actions in jointly pursuing a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) constituted mutual consent to abandon the AME agreement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.2(f)mutual written consentQualified Medical Examinerinterim orderfinal ordersignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ9924944, ADJ9586539, ADJ9642399
Regular
Dec 18, 2017

FRANCISCO ALVARADO vs. E. &J. GALLO WINERY WORKERS' COMPENSATION, E. &J. GALLO WINERY

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of an order approving a Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement. The defendant claims they discovered a prior, unaddressed injury after executing the C&R but before its approval, and sought to withdraw consent. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding the record insufficient to determine if the defendant had a due process right to present evidence regarding the discovered injury. The matter was remanded for a new hearing to establish the facts surrounding the C&R's execution and submission, and the parties' intentions.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceEmployment Development DepartmentCumulative trauma claimSpecific injuryDate of injuryWithdraw consentDue process rights
References
Case No. AD.J4253500 (SAC 0250917)
Regular
Jun 27, 2017

DARONNA THOMPKINS vs. CITIZENS TELECOM, CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought removal after her attorney was dismissed, arguing prejudice to her ability to enforce ongoing medical treatment awards. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, as the attorney's withdrawal was not at a critical stage. The Board affirmed the WCJ's dismissal, noting the attorney provided ample notice and offered assistance with award enforcement. The applicant was advised to contact the Information and Assistance Officer for further aid.

Petition for RemovalDismissal as Attorney of RecordMedical Treatment AwardEnforcement of AwardWithdrawal of CounselSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmCode of Civil Procedure Section 284Good Cause StandardClient Consent
References
Case No. ADJ7456943
Regular
Jun 12, 2015

LILIAN LOPEZ vs. THE EDWARD THOMAS COMPANIES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case concerns a lien claimant, Elena Konstat, Ph.D., whose lien was dismissed after she failed to appear at a lien conference and did not provide good cause. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition for reconsideration, upholding the dismissal. The Board found that the lien claimant's notice of representation was procedurally deficient and did not comply with relevant WCAB rules. Additionally, the petition for reconsideration itself lacked proper verification from someone with personal knowledge of the facts.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienWCJNotice of RepresentationWCAB Rule 10774.5failure to appeargood causeverificationpersonal knowledge
References
Case No. ADJ7188295
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

TRACEY CALHOUN vs. RAMONA MANOR CONVALESCENT HOME, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for removal and dismissed their petition for reconsideration. The employer sought to change venue from Los Angeles to Riverside based on the applicant's location and injury site. The Board found the order denying the venue change was procedural, not a final order, thus dismissing the reconsideration petition. They also denied removal, noting the employer's failure to verify the petition and lack of demonstrated irreparable harm or substantial prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueWCJ OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsProcedural OrderVerificationAppeals Board Rule 10410
References
Case No. ADJ478742
Regular
Oct 28, 2009

GERALDINE MORROW vs. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC., DYNAMIC CLAIM SERVICES

The petition for removal is denied because the applicant has not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ's order does not direct the Social Security Administration to disclose applicant's records.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderPrivileged RecordsFederal Social Security RegulationsSSA DisclosureApplicant ConsentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeniedSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. SAL 0113698
Regular
Jul 06, 2007

Antonio Ruiz vs. Avalon Structural, ACE Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the finding that applicant Antonio Ruiz's injury did not arise out of employment. The Board found that applicant's deviation from his commute to obtain necessary safety masks for his job met the "special mission" exception to the going and coming rule. Consequently, the injury sustained during this deviation is deemed to have occurred within the course of employment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSpecial Mission ExceptionGoing and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer BenefitImplied ConsentSafety EquipmentMasksMaterials
References
Case No. ADJ20307046
Regular
Apr 01, 2025

FRANK UWAKWE vs. AMAZON COM INC; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

Applicant Frank Uwakwe sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR), arguing he did not understand the settlement terms and that the OACR failed to consider all claimed injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) received a Report and Recommendation from the WCJ suggesting the Petition be treated as one to set aside the OACR and returned to the trial level. Citing its continuing jurisdiction and contract principles, the WCAB dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as premature. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the petition as one to set aside the OACR, conduct further proceedings, and potentially order medical-legal reporting.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseSet Aside OACRMeeting of the MindsMutual ConsentContract PrinciplesGood CauseDue ProcessFair Hearing
References
Case No. ADJ7867551; ADJ7867528
Regular
Feb 11, 2014

MARK MAYNE vs. INTEL CORPORATION

In *Mayne v. Intel Corporation*, the Appeals Board granted Defendant Intel's Petition for Removal. The Board agreed that an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) agreement cannot be unilaterally cancelled by one party for an untimely report, as the WCJ had found. Consequently, the Board amended the prior order to specify that any subsequent Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel, if needed, must be in orthopedic surgery, the same specialty as the original AME. The Board also noted potential issues of ex parte communication and sanctions that the WCJ may address on remand.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel of QMEsJoint Findings of Fact and OrdersWCJAppeals BoardSupplemental ReportEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code section 5813
References
Showing 1-10 of 29 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