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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of J.

The case concerns an adoption proceeding initiated by a same-sex couple. The court addresses whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for the adoptive infant, a practice previously common in same-sex adoptions due to their novelty. Citing Matter of Dana, which affirmed the legality of same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couple adoptions, the court found no legal basis to treat same-sex adoptions differently from those by married couples, where a guardian ad litem is not automatically appointed if statutory requirements and social worker reports are favorable. The court concluded that denying equal treatment could violate federal and state equal protection clauses, deciding against appointing a guardian ad litem unless special circumstances are present.

AdoptionSame-sex coupleGuardian ad litemBest interest of childEqual protectionDomestic Relations LawStatutory interpretationCourt of AppealsSurrogate's CourtFamily Law
References
2
Case No. AD.J9352393, AD.J9352398, AD.J9531390
Regular
Apr 11, 2016

NORMAN WESEMAN vs. CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, Permissibly Self-Insured, SUPERIOR READY MIX, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, City of Cathedral City and Superior Ready Mix. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. Reconsideration was granted due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB aims to thoroughly understand the record to issue a just decision. All future correspondence related to the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners, not district offices or e-filed.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCITY OF CATHEDRAL CITYSUPERIOR READY MIXPERMISSIBLY SELF-INSUREDADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMEAMSJUDICIAL ATTORNEY'S FEESCOMPROMISE AND RELEASE AGREEMENTSSTIPULATIONS WITH REQUEST FOR AWARD
References
0
Case No. AD.J9949974, AD.J9950384
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

KAREN HERCULES vs. BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION dba EI SUPER, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves Karen Hercules' workers' compensation claim against Bodega Latina Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The denial was based on the employer's failure to reject the claim within 90 days of filing, creating a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). The employer's subsequent denial on June 18, 2015, was untimely as it occurred 132 days after the claim form dated February 5, 2015. Therefore, the injury is presumed compensable, and the employer failed to rebut this presumption.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBodega Latina CorporationYork Risk Services GroupPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityclaim formdenial of claimadministrative law judgespecific injury
References
0
Case No. AD J9690520, AD J9690521
Regular
Mar 23, 2016

BRETT BUNGE vs. BEN F. SMITH, INC.; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order was procedural and not a "final" order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The Board admonished the applicant's attorney for filing an improper petition that could cause delay and potential sanctions. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding the procedural/evidentiary issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderThreshold IssueSubstantive LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
0
Case No. AD.J9467074, AD.J9468922
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

THEODORE DAVIS vs. CITY OF MODESTO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case concerns the admissibility of a medical report by Dr. Besses and whether it can be reviewed by a panel qualified medical examiner (QME). The applicant sought reconsideration and removal of a prior decision that found the report inadmissible due to improper procedure under Labor Code section 4060. The Appeals Board treated the applicant's filing as a Petition for Reconsideration, finding that the admissibility of the report presented a critical issue in the case. Ultimately, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed the Petition for Removal, upholding the prior decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4060Batten v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Panel QMEAdmissibility of Medical ReportInterim OrdersFinal OrderThreshold Issues
References
7
Case No. AD J8835024 AD J8996815
Regular
Jun 14, 2016

TRACIE KEILLOR vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior award, and found that the applicant, a deputy sheriff, did not sustain industrial injury from a stroke. While Labor Code section 3212.5 creates a presumption of industrial causation for heart trouble in peace officers, the applicant failed to establish, based on a qualified medical evaluator's opinions, that her stroke was caused by heart trouble or that she suffered from any heart trouble. The expert consistently found no evidence of heart trouble contributing to the stroke and opined that an intracranial thrombosis was the probable cause. Therefore, the presumption under section 3212.5 was not applicable as the applicant did not meet the threshold requirement of showing heart trouble.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffStrokeHeart PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.5Occupational CausationMedical ProbabilityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorCardiologistIn Situ Thrombosis
References
6
Case No. AD J9607148 AD J9607146
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

RICKY JACKSON vs. LARRY'S MASTERCRAFT AUTO PAINTING, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather from an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would warrant this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which detailed these reasons, was adopted by the Board. Therefore, the applicant's petition was ultimately dismissed and denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. AD.J9720531, AD.J9720533
Regular
Apr 28, 2016

JULIA HERRERA DE GRADILLA vs. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Julia Herrera De Gradilla's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition to be untimely, as it was filed over 25 days after the arbitrator's decision was served. California law mandates that petitions for reconsideration must be received by the WCAB within the statutory time limit, and late filings deprive the board of jurisdiction. The WCAB further noted that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on its merits based on the arbitrator's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalArbitrator's ReportLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
4
Case No. AD.J4485849 (LBO 0338530) AD.J3390481 (LBO 0329915) AD.J4560133 (LBO 0338531)
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

GILDARDO PATINO vs. TERRA PAVE, INC, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, deeming the WCJ's discovery order non-final. However, the Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that the WCJ erred by not considering a newly discovered Index System Report. This report, indicating a prior motor vehicle accident, was listed as a proposed exhibit, making it potentially admissible. Consequently, the WCJ's order denying further depositions was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)depositiongood causeprejudiceirreparable harmIndex System Report
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2008

Weiss v. El Ad Properties NY LLC

A plaintiff worker, a carpenter, sustained injuries when an A-frame dolly he was guiding down a ramp veered, striking him in the face with metal studs. The worker filed a lawsuit against the property owner, El Ad Properties, and the general contractor, Tishman Construction, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) due to an unsafe ramp. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing compliance with the Industrial Code based on deposition testimony. However, the plaintiff's own testimony disputed the ramp's mandated width and proper plank spacing, raising a triable issue of fact regarding compliance with 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b) (3). Consequently, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of proving prima facie compliance, leading to the affirmation of the denial of their summary judgment motion.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeRamp SafetyConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityGeneral ContractorProperty OwnerTriable Issue of Fact
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 280 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