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. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
8
Case No. ADJ137248 (MON 0283474)
Regular
May 21, 2009

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENTS, INC., dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SIMPLEX GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, KURT REXIUS

This case involves an applicant's Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim against KAR Investments, Inc. (dba Rigoli Fire Extinguisher) and its successor, Simplex Grinnell. The WCAB rescinded a prior finding that barred the applicant from pursuing Simplex due to a statute of limitations issue. The Board ordered Kurt Rexius, the sole shareholder of KAR, joined as a necessary party defendant for full adjudication. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine if discrimination occurred and who is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKAR InvestmentsInc.Rigoli Fire ExtinguisherSimplex GrinnellKurt RexiusLabor Code section 132asuccessor-in-intereststatute of limitationreconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ6413644
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JANICE HOWELL vs. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, dba COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition also sought removal, which was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issues, such as an order compelling medical record production, are interlocutory procedural matters not subject to reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, denying both reconsideration and removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationStipulationsOrder Compelling Production of RecordsDiscovery ProcessPrivacy
References
11
Case No. ADJ4238414
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

CINDY HEWITT vs. THE KROGER CO. dba RALPHS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, The Kroger Co. dba Ralphs, seeking to rescind an order continuing the applicant's case to trial. The defendant argued that inconsistencies in the agreed medical evaluator's reports required further discovery, such as interrogatories or a second deposition, before proceeding. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the adequacy of the medical record cannot be determined until the matter is submitted for trial. The Board emphasized that it is more expeditious to proceed to trial and allow the WCJ to assess the record's completeness then.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorInconsistenciesDiscoveryOff CalendarWCJReport and RecommendationMcDuffieMedical Record AugmentationCase Development
References
1
Case No. ADJ10097589
Regular
Nov 06, 2019

JONATHAN LOYOLA vs. TIM BURKE dba MARIN CUSTOM BUILDERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award of $10,000 plus costs against Tim Burke dba Marin Custom Builders for violating Labor Code section 132a. The applicant's termination was found to be discriminatory, stemming from his industrial ankle injury, rather than job abandonment as alleged by the defendant. The Board found the defendant's stated business reasons for termination were not credible and lacked legitimate business necessity. The award amount was determined to be appropriate based on the applicant's case-in-chief settlement.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationTerminationJob abandonmentPrima facie caseRebuttalLegitimate business reasonTemporary disability benefitsIndustrial injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ6628362
Regular
Dec 23, 2010

MAURICE CARR vs. OTIS GLADNEY, Dba AAA MOTORCYCLE ESCORT SERVICE

This case involves a worker injured while employed as a motorcycle escort driver. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award to correct a clerical error. Specifically, the WCAB amended the award to ensure the employer, Otis Gladney dba AAA Motorcycle Escort Service, was explicitly named as the liable party, as was originally intended. The WCAB affirmed all other aspects of the original findings and award concerning the applicant's injuries and benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeMotorcycle escort driverUninsured employerIndustrial injuryScapula injuryElbow injuryForearm injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ859899
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

FERNANDO SOSA vs. RIGOBERTO URIARTE DBA RIGO'S PLASTERING, UNISURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case concerns a second petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Rigoberto Uriarte DBA Rigo's Plastering, challenging both the original administrative law judge's decision and the Board's prior denial of reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as legally impermissible, citing precedent that prohibits successive petitions after a decision has been rendered. The defendant's sole recourse after the Board's denial was to petition for a writ of review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewWCJ DecisionBoard DecisionCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A Farming
References
4
Case No. ADJ6877332
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

ELEAZAR ESCOBEDO vs. JOHN O'SHEA dba O'SHEA WELDING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, concerning Eleazar Escobedo versus John O'Shea dba O'Shea Welding and State Compensation Insurance Fund, is being dismissed. The dismissal is a direct result of the petitioner voluntarily withdrawing their Petition for Reconsideration. The Board is ordering the dismissal of the reconsideration petition based on this withdrawal.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionOrder of DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCase NumberOakland District OfficeJuly 18 2014 DecisionAugust 29 2014 Filing
References
0
Case No. ADJ9381883
Regular
Aug 04, 2014

PATRICK ROBERTSON vs. RON BONNANO, dba ALPINE CABINETS, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, defendant Ron Bonnano, dba Alpine Cabinets, sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board granted the petition for reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action allows for a more complete understanding of the record to ensure a just decision. All future communications must now be filed in writing with the Board's Commissioners in San Francisco, not at the district office or electronically.

References
0
Case No. ADJ474396
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

VADIM KOVALENKO vs. PESP dba ACTION PRODUCTION, CIGA by SEDGWICK CMS for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, LUMINATIONS INC., ST PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien with prejudice. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference and provide proof of paying the required lien activation fee as mandated by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). Despite the claimant's argument of not being aware of the conference date, the WCJ found this claim not credible based on the record. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, affirming that no relief was available for the failure to pay the fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ OpinionReport and RecommendationDeniedApplicantDefendantsCIGALegion Insurance CompanyLiquidation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 556 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