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. ADJ10431269 ADJ10588231
Regular
Feb 26, 2018

JUAN ALVARADO vs. DISCOVERY FOODS, LLC, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior decision. The Board found that the employer, Discovery Foods, LLC, failed to prove applicant Juan Alvarado was adequately notified of his workers' compensation rights. Crucially, Labor Code section 5401(b) mandates notices be in both English and Spanish, and Alvarado does not read English. The Board clarified that general knowledge of the workers' compensation system does not equate to actual knowledge of potential eligibility for a specific injury. Finally, the employer waived the defense of laches by failing to raise it at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5401(b)Spanish language noticeActual knowledgePrejudiceStatute of limitationsTollingLachesWaiver
References
Case No. ADJ9441801 ADJ10298288
Regular
Jul 21, 2017

PAULA WALTON vs. PORTS AMERICA, DISCOVERY RE, GALLAGHER BASSETT, SSA CONTAINERS, INC., METRO RISK MANAGEMENT

In this workers' compensation matter, the Appeals Board granted Ports America's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board rescinded the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Joint Findings and Order of July 17, 2017. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings by the ALJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderWCJPorts AmericaDiscovery ReGallagher BassettSSA ContainersMetro Risk ManagementADJ9441801
References
Case No. ADJ3970034 (SRO 0141364)
Regular
Mar 26, 2012

JOSEPH MENEKTOS vs. DISCOVERY OFFICE SYSTEMS, TRAVELERS, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the Supplemental Findings and Orders. The Board found that the existing record was insufficient to determine if the applicant's subsequent industrial injury, standing alone, met the 35% permanent disability threshold required for benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The case is returned to the trial level for further medical record development to clarify the applicant's permanent disability from the subsequent injury without regard to prior awards.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFLabor Code section 4751permanent disability threshold35% ratingprior industrial injurysubsequent industrial injurycumulative effectApportionmentmedical reports
References
Case No. ADJ7372920
Regular
Mar 12, 2012

SHELBY ANDREWS vs. COMFORT SYSTEMS, DISCOVERY PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Comfort Systems and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration. This action is necessary to allow the Board further opportunity to study the factual and legal issues involved in the applicant's case. The Board anticipates conducting further proceedings to ensure a just and reasoned decision is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationGallagher BassettElectronic Adjudication Management SystemRonnie G. CaplaneFrank M. Brass
References
Case No. ADJ11670075
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

JACK RIEGER vs. FOX SPORTS 1, LLC, DISCOVERY RE/TRAVELERS USF&G, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's award finding applicant's severe injuries from a five-story fall compensable. The Board rejected defendant's claims of judicial bias and dismissed their petitions for disqualification. Defendant's arguments that the fall was not work-related, intentionally self-inflicted, or a suicide attempt failed due to insufficient proof and the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws favoring injured employees. The Board found the WCJ properly limited testimony of a defense expert, and that medical records sufficiently supported the findings of injury despite the absence of a QME report.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3600(a)(5)Labor Code section 3600(a)(6)Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldisqualification of WCJbiasevidentiary decisionfinal ordersubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ17937030
Regular
Nov 04, 2025

MARGARET RUSSOTTO vs. PARK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION DBA SIX FLAGS DISCOVERY KINGDOM, PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendants Park Management Corporation and Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford. The defendants challenged the Findings and Award (F&A) of July 28, 2025, which found applicant Margaret Russotto sustained industrial injuries to her lumbar spine, hips, thigh, and scarring, resulting in 42% disability. The WCAB upheld the F&A, finding that the expert medical opinion of PQME Jagtar Dhesi, D.C., constituted substantial medical evidence supporting the existence and extent of the injuries and impairments. The Board noted the defendants' failure to provide rebuttal medical evidence or undertake further investigation prior to trial, emphasizing the duty to develop the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJAMA GuidesPermanent ImpairmentSubstantial Medical EvidencePanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Lumbar SpineHip InjuryScarring
References
Case No. ADJ1732179 (LBO 0394128)
Regular
Feb 15, 2011

LISA WLADKOWSKI vs. BALL METAL CONTAINER CORP.; DISCOVERY MANAGERS, administered by SPECIALITY RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order that struck a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report due to an allegedly excessive deposition fee. However, the Board granted the defendant's alternative petition for removal. The Board found no legal basis to strike a QME's report solely because their deposition fee exceeds the presumptive statutory rate. Consequently, the original order striking the report was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEdeposition testimonyexcessive feemedical legal fee schedulestriking medical reportpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalevidentiary order
References
Case No. ADJ394468 (OAK 0325496)
Regular
Apr 26, 2018

Maria Padilla vs. IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES, YORK, RISK SERVICES GROUP

Applicant Maria Padilla petitioned for removal after a WCJ's discovery order allegedly closed discovery, denying her due process. The WCJ recommended granting removal, clarifying that discovery was intended to be stayed, not closed. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order closing discovery, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. This decision ensures further discovery can be properly considered based on the WCJ's clarified intent.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery OrderWCJDue ProcessStay DiscoveryReport and RecommendationRescind OrderDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ6761265
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

LUIS INIGO vs. GLEN HAVE MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC.; DISCOVERY PROPERTY & CASUALTY, Administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant argued that striking a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) report due to alleged untimeliness would cause undue delay and render prior expenses meaningless. However, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that mere additional expense does not constitute irreparable harm. Therefore, removal was deemed an inappropriate and extraordinary remedy in this case.

Petition for RemovalWCABQME PanelStrike QME ReportTimeliness ObjectionIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyMedical-Legal EvaluationLabor Code Section 4062.5California Code of Regulations
References
Case No. ADJ4052884 (AHM 0136124), ADJ6520242, ADJ7028149
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

EMILIO EDDIE ROMERO, SARA ROMERO vs. CLOROX PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

Defendant Clorox sought removal to the Appeals Board to review an order allowing a second deposition of the decedent's QME, arguing prejudice from delay. Defendant contended the applicant waived discovery rights and the issue should be the QME's report's evidentiary value. However, the QME's deposition subsequently occurred. Therefore, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot and ordered the matter returned to the trial calendar.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEDepositionDiscoveryVacated OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Showing 1-10 of 681 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