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. ADJ3351309 (LBO 0383773)
Regular
Jul 27, 2017

JOSE ALDANA vs. FAIRMOUNT TIRE AND RUBBER, CRUM & FORSTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Crum & Forster's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of 100% permanent disability for Jose Aldana's 2006 industrial injury. The Board granted SCIF's petition to correct a clerical error, amending the award to designate Crum & Forster as the solely liable insurer. Crum & Forster's arguments regarding the vocational expert's report and potential disability overlap with a prior 2004 eye injury were rejected. The Board affirmed that Aldana is entitled to the full 100% permanent disability award as the claimed overlap disability was not established.

Permanent Total DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminersAMA GuidesLabor Code Section 4664(c)(1)Newman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd.Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd.Apportionment to CausationOverlapping DisabilitiesVocational ExpertFindings of Fact and Award
References
4
Case No. ADJ7123885
Regular
Mar 30, 2015

KATHY GRIFFITHS vs. PRUDENTIAL, CRUM FORSTER

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The applicant, Kathy Griffiths, is represented by Berman More Gonzalez, and Prudential and Crum Forster are the defendants. The petitioner has withdrawn their Petition for Removal. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the petition.

Petition for RemovalDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCase NumberAnaheim District OfficeOrderWithdrawalPetitioner
References
0
Case No. ADJ6601989
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

AMALIA VILLEGAS (Widow) vs. TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE C/O CRUM & FORSTER

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the widow's claim for death benefits was presumed compensable under Labor Code section 5402. The defendant argued they never received the original Findings and Order and that their timely denial of the decedent's inter vivos claim also covered the death benefits claim. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the defendant's petition timely due to evidence of improper service. Ultimately, the Board reversed the prior finding, holding that the defendant had timely denied liability for the death benefit claim by denying the underlying injury claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code section 5402Presumption of CompensabilityDeath BenefitsInter Vivos ClaimCumulative TraumaToxins ExposureAdrenal CarcinomaProof of Service
References
4
Case No. ADJ132127 (VNO 0524197) ADJ2705905 (VNO 0524198)
Regular
May 24, 2016

MIRELLA FLORES DE LOPEZ vs. FACEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, CRUM & FORSTER INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration for Mirella Flores de Lopez's case against Facet Medical Foundation and Crum & Forster Insurance. This decision was made to allow the Board more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. The WCAB requires all future correspondence related to the petition to be filed directly with their office, not district offices or e-filed. Settlements cannot be processed by a WCJ while a case is under reconsideration by the Board.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMIRELLA FLORES DE LOPEZFACEY MEDICAL FOUNDATIONCRUM & FORSTER INSURANCEPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
0
Case No. MON 310553
Regular
Sep 05, 2007

, LAZARO MARTINEZ vs. , WEDGESTONE CORP.;, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order closing discovery. The applicant argued that discovery should not have been closed as their serious and willful misconduct claim was not addressed at the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) and the case was subsequently taken off calendar. The Board agreed that the closure of discovery was improper, particularly since the case was taken off calendar, and the relevant statute does not mandate closure in such circumstances.

Petition for removalSerious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mandatory settlement conferenceDiscovery closedTaken off calendarIndustrial injuryIncreased benefitsWCJ orderRescind order
References
0
Case No. ADJ8286219
Regular
Feb 20, 2013

RAMON BERNARDINO vs. BAYVIEW VINEYARDS and CRUM FORSTER

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, Bayview Vineyards, sought to rescind an order awarding applicant's counsel fees and penalties. The defendant argued that the awarded fee of $1,633.00 had already been paid prior to the order. The Appeals Board, finding no opposition from the applicant's counsel, granted the defendant's petition for removal. Consequently, the order awarding the fees and penalties was rescinded, as payment was confirmed to have been made.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code §5710 FeesPenaltiesWCJOrder Granting PetitionRescind OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDecision After RemovalBradford & BarthelJohn Bloom
References
0
Case No. ADJ6738825
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

ANA ZAVALETA vs. LEVLAD LLC, CRUM & FORSTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a dismissal order. The original case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution after the applicant's claim was inactive for over four years. The applicant's attorney argued for reconsideration, stating renewed contact with the applicant who had moved to El Salvador. However, the Board found the explanation insufficient for rescinding the dismissal, agreeing with the WCJ that the applicant's readiness to proceed after such a long period of inactivity was not demonstrated. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing for reconsideration based on public policy favoring the resolution of litigation on its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseLack of ProsecutionCumulative Industrial InjuryApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPetition for DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissRescind Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ6697121
Regular
May 13, 2013

GABRIELA GUZMAN vs. SIGUE CORPORATION, CRUM AND FORSTER

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed by a Workers' Compensation Judge for failure to pay a required lien activation fee and appear at a lien conference. The lien claimant claimed they lacked proper notice of the conference, but official records indicated notice was properly served. The Board found no good cause for the claimant's non-appearance or failure to respond to the subsequent dismissal order, concluding that a failure to calendar a properly noticed hearing does not constitute excusable neglect. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied, affirming the dismissal of the lien.

Lien activation feePetition for reconsiderationWorkers' compensationLien claimantWCJOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimFailure to payProof of paymentLien conferenceExcusable neglect
References
0
Case No. ADJ3746264 (LBO 0362006)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

TERESA LICEA vs. PELICAN PRODUCTS, CRUM FORSTER ORANGE

The applicant, Teresa Licea, was awarded vocational rehabilitation benefits from February 2, 2006, to September 5, 2006, with the defendant estopped from denying her qualified injured worker status. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the estoppel issue was not properly raised or litigated. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken due to the significant legal issue surrounding the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 and its effect on vocational rehabilitation benefits awarded after January 1, 2009. The Board desires to address this threshold jurisdictional question and allow the parties and judge to consider relevant en banc decisions.

Vocational rehabilitationEstoppelQualified injured workerSupplemental Findings and AwardPetition for reconsiderationReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 139.5RepealEn banc decisionRescinded
References
1
Case No. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 56 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