Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The Petition for Removal is denied based on the review of the record and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.
Defendant Branquinho Drywall, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund sought reconsideration of a July 2, 2009 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition due to statutory time constraints and a need for further study of factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and allow for a just decision. All future communications must be directed to the Board's Office of the Commissioners.
The defendant filed a petition for removal challenging the presiding judge's inaction on a venue change request and an expedited hearing. However, the presiding judge subsequently issued orders that addressed these issues by taking the hearing off calendar and transferring venue. Therefore, the defendant's petition for removal is moot and has been dismissed by the Appeals Board.
This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant regarding a prior decision on March 7, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and an initial review indicating a need for further study of factual and legal issues. This action is deemed necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision. All future filings related to this case must be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not to district offices or via e-filing.
Applicant Francisco Aguirre filed a petition to reopen after a $49,500 Compromise and Release (OACR) was approved for an industrial injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the petition as one for reconsideration but dismissed it as premature. The WCAB returned the matter to the trial level for the judge to consider the petition as a motion to set aside the OACR, applying a 60-day extension to statutory deadlines due to Executive Order N-68-20.
The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his left lower extremity, specifically a fractured ankle requiring surgery. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's award of 30% permanent disability, arguing the panel QME's reports lacked specific measurements and explanations required by the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the QME's deposition testimony, which provided detailed explanations and measurements, constituted substantial evidence. The Board clarified that while AMA Guides sections must be followed, physicians can use their clinical judgment and specific tables within the Guides as long as the basis is explained.
This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jorge Maciel Ibarra's claim for an industrial injury as a drywall installer. The primary issue is whether applicant was a household employee, as the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) argues for exclusion. The Board rescinded the initial findings and remanded the case for the WCJ to first determine the identity of the employer and insurance status. If Tim Cagle Drywall is uninsured, the WCJ must then decide if the applicant, as an employee of an unlicensed contractor, meets the household employee wage and hour thresholds for coverage.
This case concerns Applicant Juan Ledesma's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on December 4, 2004, while working as a drywall installer. The initial decision denied benefits, finding intoxication barred recovery under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior order and finding that Applicant did sustain injury to multiple body parts. The Board determined the defendants failed to prove Applicant's intoxication was a substantial or proximate cause of his injury, therefore section 3600(a)(4) did not bar recovery, deferring other issues.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Removal. The Board denied the petition, stating that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. The petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor did they show that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Board concluded that the petition should be denied.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original Findings and Award due to a conflicted medical opinion regarding apportionment. The Board found the medical expert's initial apportionment was unreliable due to his admission of not reviewing his own report, and ordered the case returned for further medical evidence development on the issue of apportionment between the specific injury, cumulative trauma, and pre-existing conditions. This includes obtaining a new medical-legal evaluation to determine the extent of permanent disability and its allocation.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.