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. ADJ7895528 (VNO 0538295) ADJ944426
Regular
May 07, 2012

DANIEL BELLING vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined a substantive right or liability. Interlocutory orders, such as the one regarding evidence or trial setting in this case, are not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's report and finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCAB
References
Case No. ADJ347577 (SAC 0220919)
Regular
Jul 09, 2009

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, RELIANCE INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, PACIFC BELL

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed an award for applicant Stephen Flannery's back and psyche injury. Pacific Bell, the special employer, was found jointly and severally liable with the general employer's insurer, Reliance (now CIGA), for ongoing benefits, as Pacific Bell's self-insurance constitutes "other insurance." The Board reversed the WCJ's award of temporary total disability beyond the five-year jurisdictional limit unless the disability straddled the anniversary date. The doctrine of laches was found inapplicable against CIGA, and CIGA was not liable for EDD's lien as Pacific Bell was the primary source of benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAReliance Insurance liquidationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPacific Bellspecial employerjoint and several liabilitylachesnew and further disabilityfive-year jurisdictional period
References
Case No. ADJ347577
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, ODIE PRETTYMAN, PACIFIC BELL, CAMBRIDGE SACRAMENTO, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT, SEDGWICK CIGA GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration regarding a penalty on delayed temporary disability payments. The WCJ had previously ordered Pacific Bell to pay the overdue temporary disability benefits and deferred the penalty issue. Pacific Bell argued the penalty claim was resolved under Labor Code §5814(c) upon payment, but the Board found no merit in this argument. The matter is returned to the trial level for resolution of the applicant's attorney fees related to the penalty under Labor Code §5814.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5814.5Attorneys' FeesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Pacific BellTemporary Disability IndemnityPenaltiesInterestAward
References
Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
Case No. ADJ9778324
Regular
Nov 08, 2017

JAIRO RAMOS vs. JTS JOSE TREE SERVICE, INC., JOSE MIGUEL SOTO, DANIEL SOTO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury. The primary issue is determining the identity of the employer(s), with allegations of joint ownership/operation between JTS Jose Tree Service, Inc., Jose Miguel Soto, and Daniel Soto. Jose Soto's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. Daniel Soto's petition was granted because the original findings lacked evidentiary support and the record required further development regarding employment status and potential licensing issues. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJTS Jose Tree ServiceJose Miguel SotoDaniel SotoUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundFindings of FactOrder of DeferralPetition for ReconsiderationJoint EmployersSubstantial Shareholder
References
Case No. ADJ3478352 (OAK 0318333)
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

RUKIYA PIERSON vs. PACIFIC BELL, SEDGWICK

In *Pierson v. Pacific Bell*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a December 14, 2015 decision. The WCAB deemed reconsideration necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Pending the WCAB's decision after reconsideration, all related communications must be filed directly with the Board's Office of the Commissioners and not with district offices or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific BellSedgwickStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMS
References
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

Daniel Escamilla vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Daniel Escamilla's petitions seeking production of eleven sanction case files and clarification of issues. The WCAB found Mr. Escamilla already possessed or had access to the relevant documents and had adequate notice of the issues concerning his alleged misconduct. His objections to providing an offer of proof were deemed untimely and without merit. Consequently, the Board affirmed the existing procedures and denied his requests.

WCABDaniel Escamillasanction proceedingsoffer of proofpetition for removalLabor Code Section 4907suspensionremoval of privilegerepresentativemoral character
References
Case No. ADJ1099489 (VNO 0555304)
Regular
Jan 15, 2013

MICHELLE HALLIE vs. PACIFIC BELL AND TELEPHONE (AT&T successor in interest)

This case involves applicant Michelle Hallie and defendant Pacific Bell (AT&T) seeking reconsideration of a decision filed October 22, 2012. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is taken to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to render a just decision after appropriate further proceedings. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific BellAT&T successorSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedings
References
Case No. ADJ6778085
Regular
Jan 08, 2014

DANIEL LOBATO vs. PENHALL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ZURICH/CONVERIUM, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Daniel Lobato v. Penhall International Corporation. The petitioner, who filed the reconsideration, has withdrawn their petition. Consequently, the WCAB has formally dismissed the reconsideration as requested.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionerDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6778085November 14 2013 DecisionLong Beach District OfficeZurich/ConveriumSedgwick CMSPenhall International Corporation
References
Case No. ADJ2647713 (SFO 0504908) ADJ2419734 (SFO 0504906) ADJ292246 (SFO 0505632)
Regular
Sep 28, 2010

ANNA HONG vs. SBC INTERNET SERVICES/PACIFIC BELL, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves applicant Anna Hong and defendants SBC Internet Services/Pacific Bell and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing an order to dismiss the Petition for Removal filed by the applicant. This dismissal is based solely on the applicant's withdrawal of that petition. Deputy Commissioner Schmitz, who was part of a prior panel, is unavailable to participate further.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSBC Internet ServicesPacific BellAmerican Home AssuranceSedgwick Claims Management ServicesDeputy Commissioner SchmitzCase Numbers
References
Showing 1-10 of 240 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