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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. VNO 0470470
Regular
May 12, 2008

GERARDO RAMIREZ vs. WILLIAM ALONSO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning applicant Gerardo Ramirez's employment status at the time of his injury. The Board rescinded the previous findings, finding the evidence insufficient to support dual employment and needing clarification on whether applicant was a casual employee, which might affect his eligibility for benefits. The case was returned to the trial level for additional evidence gathering, including a review of the defendant's insurance policy for the property where the injury occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Fundindustrial injuryright major extremitydefendant's contentiondual employmentthreshold issueemployment relationshippresumption of employmentjoint venture
References
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314) ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316) ADJ460036 (GOL 0101615)
Regular
Dec 12, 2011

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injuries while employed as a zookeeper for Neverland Valley Ranch and other entities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the trial judge erred by excluding evidence related to employment agreements under the parol evidence rule, which is relevant to determining employer status. Further development of the record is required to properly address the applicant's employment relationships with the defendant entities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchMichael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
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. SFO 0499272
Regular
Jul 07, 2008

Helen Miller vs. Green Gulch Farm and Zen Center, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that Helen Miller was an employee of Green Gulch Farm and Zen Center and sustained an industrial injury to her left ankle. The Board found Miller was not a volunteer due to the extensive benefits received and the employer's control, and her jogging injury during a lunch break was a reasonable expectancy of employment, not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Therefore, her injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardHelen MillerGreen Gulch Farm and Zen CenterEverest National InsuranceGallagher BassettSFO 0499272Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3352(i)Employee definition
References
Case No. ADJ4413699 (SDO 0272634)
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

ROMINA FATURECHI vs. JOSEPH CAPPS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, OCEAN'S ELEVEN CASINO, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a prior decision, finding that the applicant was jointly employed by Joseph Capps and Ocean's Eleven Casino. This determination was based on evidence that the Casino exercised control over the applicant's work, including directing when games started and stopped, providing meals, and having the ability to influence her hiring and termination. The Court emphasized that the legality of the Casino employing the applicant was not the decisive factor. Therefore, both Capps and the Casino are considered dual employers for the purposes of workers' compensation.

Dual employmentSpecial employment relationshipJoint employmentControl of employee activitiesCasino bankerPropositional playerUninsured employerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundBorello test
References
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
Case No. ADJ11968759
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

JESUS ORTEGA GONZALEZ vs. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., BALJINDER S. GILL, PEOPLEASE LLC, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD.

This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOdual employmentgeneral employerspecial employerco-employmentclient policyLabor Code section 3602(d)presumption of employmentsubstantial evidence
References
Case No. ADJ6927641
Regular
Oct 24, 2016

Victor Arredondo vs. Scott Linskey dba Malibu Coast Nursery and Landscapes, Willy Arredondo, Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original findings. The Board found the initial decision insufficient because it failed to address whether the applicant was employed by Willy Arredondo or as a dual employee of both Willy Arredondo and Scott Linskey. Furthermore, the Board determined that the applicant had met his initial burden of proving services rendered, shifting the burden to the employer to rebut the presumption of employment. The case is returned for further proceedings to make findings on employment status, independent contractor status, and any exclusions to coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBurden of ProofEmploymentDual EmployersPresumption of EmploymentIndependent ContractorExcluded EmployeeBorello
References
Case No. ADJ10233708
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

ARTURO CHAVEZ vs. PURPOSE DRIVEN PERSONNEL, HARTFORD, COUNTRYWIDE PAYROLL, NORTH BAY DISTRIBUTION, COMPWEST, H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, TRAVELERS

This case concerns the employment status of applicant Arturo Chavez and the resulting workers' compensation liability. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings of fact regarding employment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The primary dispute revolves around whether Purpose Driven Personnel was applicant's employer, given its reliance on Countrywide for payroll and workers' compensation insurance. The Board emphasized the need for further development of evidence, particularly regarding employment agreements between potential employers, to clarify the employer-employee relationship and subsequent insurance coverage.

Special employerGeneral employerDual employmentJoint and several liabilityLabor Code section 3602(d)PEOEmployee leasingService agreementWorkers' compensation insuranceFindings of Fact
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,900 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