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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ8967361
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

FELIPE GARCIA (DECEASED) GUILLERMINA GARCIA (WIDOW) vs. SALVADOR GAYTAN dba G\&P AG MANAGEMENT CONTRACTORS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE, Adjusted by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

This case involved a petition for reconsideration by the applicant in a workers' compensation matter where the deceased worker, Felipe Garcia, was initially found to be an employee but later deemed an independent contractor by the Appeals Board. The applicant argued the Board erred by disregarding the WCJ's credibility assessment and by not applying Labor Code section 2750.5 to unlicensed contractors. The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence the deceased worker was engaged in activities requiring a contractor's license under Business and Professions Code sections 7000 and 7026. Therefore, Labor Code section 2750.5 was inapplicable, and the prior decision finding the applicant an independent contractor was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent contractorEmployee statusReconsiderationLabor Code section 2750.5Contractors' State License LawBlew v. HornerGarza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Rinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Unlicensed contractor
References
Case No. ADJ6520136
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

GARY HECK vs. L.A. DEPOSITIONS dba FIRST LEGAL COURIER, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that found the applicant was an independent contractor. The WCAB found the applicant was, in fact, an employee, reversing the administrative law judge's determination. Factors including the defendant's control over the applicant's work, the integral nature of the applicant's tasks to the defendant's business, and the applicant's lack of a true independent business weighed heavily in this decision. The WCAB emphasized that labels and self-serving documents do not override the reality of the employment relationship.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEmployee vs. Independent ContractorBorello factorsControl testLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3353Labor Code Section 3357Independent Contractor ProfileEagle 1 Delivery
References
Case No. ADJ9473670
Regular
Nov 02, 2020

SANDRA UYAGUARI GARCIA vs. CLAUDIA MENDOZA Dba SWEET MELODY EXPRESS, UEBTF

This case concerns an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained while cleaning a defendant's residence. The primary issue was whether the applicant was an employee of the defendant's business, Sweet Melody Express, or an independent residential employee. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not an employee of Sweet Melody Express at the time of the injury, deeming her services to the defendant's home to be sporadic and casual housecleaning for the individual, not the business. Therefore, her claim for workers' compensation was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEmployee StatusResidential EmployeeCasual EmploymentLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8)Burden of ProofCredibility FindingEmployer Capacity
References
Case No. ADJ8430282 ADJ8430286
Regular
Jun 20, 2014

GUADALUPE VALENZUELA vs. ALTRUIST HOMECARE SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, ESIS

This case concerns a caregiver, Guadalupe Valenzuela, who sustained industrial injuries while working for Altruist Homecare Services. Altruist sought to have Valenzuela classified as an independent contractor, arguing that Civil Code section 1812.5095 applied and exempted them from employer liability. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Altruist's petition, upholding the finding that Valenzuela was an employee. The Board found Altruist failed to meet all the statutory requirements for independent contractor status under the Civil Code and that Valenzuela's circumstances indicated an employer-employee relationship under the *Borello* factors. Specifically, Valenzuela's inability to freely renegotiate pay and her belief that Altruist could terminate her employment were critical to the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackLeft LegHome Care ServicesRight ElbowRight Arm
References
Case No. ADJ8799397
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

GABRIEL VASQUEZ vs. CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and found applicant Gabriel Vasquez was an employee of CEVA Freight, LLC, reversing the original finding that he was an independent contractor. The WCAB determined that CEVA Freight exerted significant control over Vasquez's work, dictating delivery routes, times, and requiring specific attire and truck branding. Factors such as the nature of the work being part of CEVA's core business and Vasquez's limited English proficiency and education further supported the conclusion that he was an employee, not an independent contractor. This decision overturns the administrative law judge's initial order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee statusIndependent contractorControl of workBorello factorsDistinct occupationSkill requiredInstrumentalitiesMethod of paymentRegular business
References
Case No. ADJ8453925
Regular
Feb 02, 2015

MARTHA HASSAN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By INTERCARE INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits, with the primary dispute being her employment status as either an employee or an independent contractor. The defendant, County of Los Angeles, argued the applicant was an independent contractor, citing her ability to work for others and a contractual clause. However, the majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's findings that the applicant was an employee based on the County's right to control her work. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant was an independent contractor due to her distinct occupation, skill, and control over the means of her work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent ContractorEmployeeRight to ControlBorello factorsWCJPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryCourt Interpreter
References
Case No. LBO 367820
Regular
Jan 25, 2008

YU LIN JU vs. CHARLES JIA, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding that the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee. The WCJ found the applicant falsely represented having a contractor's license and insurance, estopping him from claiming employee status under Labor Code Section 2750.5. The Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility determination, which found the employer's testimony more credible.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers' FundPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeReconsideration DeniedCredibility FindingIndependent ContractorLabor Code Section 2750.5Rebuttable PresumptionEstoppel
References
Case No. ADJ8149660
Regular
Sep 19, 1943

Jeffrey Doty vs. Fred Stoke, dba Stoke Trust and Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend findings, concluding applicant Jeffrey Doty was an employee because he performed work requiring a contractor's license without possessing one. However, the Board affirmed the denial of benefits, agreeing with the WCJ that Doty failed to prove he worked the requisite 52 hours within the 90 days preceding his injury. This failure to meet the statutory threshold for residential employees excluded him from benefits. Therefore, Doty is not entitled to workers' compensation despite being deemed an employee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFred StokeUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusContractor's LicenseLabor Code Section 2750.5Tree PruningResidential Dwelling Employee52-Hour Rule
References
Case No. ADJ10257811
Regular
Dec 18, 2020

JORGE ANDRADE vs. CECILIO ARREDONDO TERREZAS, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's decision finding the applicant was not an employee at the time of injury, concluding he failed to meet his burden of proof. The applicant did not provide evidence establishing an employment relationship with the labor contractor or its associated individuals, and evidence indicated he paid for his own transportation. A dissenting opinion argued the board and judge incorrectly shifted the burden of proof, stating the applicant is presumed an employee and the employer must prove otherwise. The dissent would have rescinded the decision for failure to meet the employer's burden.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderEmployee StatusLabor ContractorBurden of ProofEmployment RelationshipPresumption of EmployeeLabor CodeRebuttal of Presumption
References
Showing 1-10 of 17,148 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

ยฉ 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational