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. ADJ8219846
Regular
Jan 26, 2018

CLAUDIA MORA vs. EZ LABOR, ENSTAR (US) INC., ENSTAR Administrators for SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ8219846, involves applicant Claudia Mora and defendants EZ Labor and Enstar. The Appeals Board is dismissing the Petition for Removal of a November 23, 2015 decision because the petitioner withdrew it. The parties have since resolved their dispute through an approved Compromise and Release, rendering the petition moot. Counsel is reminded of their duty to promptly inform the Board of case resolutions for pending petitions.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseWCJ approvalCase ADJ8219846Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWithdrawal of PetitionMoot PetitionSeabrigh Insurance CompanyEZ LaborEnstar
References
0
Case No. ADJ9210498
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

ELEANOR DEFRANCO vs. MONTEREY FISH COMPANY, ENSTAR (US) INC., dba ENSTAR ADMINISTRATORS FOR SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award that found industrial injury to applicant's right ankle, right shoulder, and back, but not her right knee. The WCAB rescinded the finding of industrial injury to the back, while otherwise affirming the prior decision. Specifically, the WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained industrial injury to her right ankle and right shoulder, and that medical treatment for her right knee is compensable to relieve the effects of the industrial injuries. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning for these decisions, including the application of the *Braewood* principle for treating the non-industrial knee condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEleanor DefrancoMonterey Fish CompanyEnstarSeabright Insurance CompanyIndustrial InjuryRight AnkleRight ShoulderRight KneeBack Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ1508875 (SAL 0120616) ADJ10261915 ADJ7549983
Regular
Oct 31, 2019

DERREL FELDMAN vs. CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, ENSTAR U.S., INC., d.b.a ENSTAR ADMINISTRATORS, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, O.C. MCDONALD, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY of CT, PARAGON MECHANICAL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that inadvertently awarded a second Labor Code section 4658(d) increase. The defendant requested a correction, which the WCAB granted. The WCAB has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time. Therefore, the September 16, 2019 decision was affirmed but amended to remove the erroneous second increase, clarifying the permanent disability indemnity awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationClerical ErrorLabor Code section 4658(d)Permanent disability indemnityAttorney feesSeabright Insurance CompanyTravelers Indemnity CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundCritchfield Mechanical
References
1
Case No. ADJ11219652, ADJ10999793, ADJ11222341, ADJ11224032, ADJ11221292
Regular
Dec 28, 2018

JOSE BELTRAN vs. WINDSOR GARDENS HEALTHCARE CENTER, ENSTAR

The Appeals Board denied Jose Beltran's petition for removal, finding he failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Beltran had not shown a compelling need for additional discovery beyond what was already available or pursuable through the trial judge. Beltran's claims regarding procedural defects in the defendant's declaration of readiness and service were also found unpersuasive. Therefore, the petition was denied, and any further discovery needs can be addressed with the trial WCJ.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDiscoveryPrimary Treating PhysicianPanel QMEDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
2
Case No. ADJ10455142
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

RUBEN CELEDON vs. ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ALLOYS, LLC, ENSTAR NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). The defendant alleged bias due to a purported "preexisting relationship" with applicant's attorney and the WCJ's rulings. However, the defendant provided no specific facts to support the relationship claim, and the WCJ denied it. Erroneous rulings, even if numerous, do not automatically establish judicial bias, and the WCJ had previously corrected an order at the defendant's request. The Board found no evidence of bias and denied the petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10452WCJ biaspreexisting relationshiperroneous rulingsaffidavitCode of Civil Procedure Section 641declaration under penalty of perjurysubjective perception of biasWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ11997989, ADJ2534190, ADJ3372314, ADJ470082, ADJ6672465
Regular
Mar 13, 2023

JAMES VESSELS vs. CRUZ MODULAR, INC., LABOR READY, ENSTAR US, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely, having been filed significantly past the jurisdictional deadline. The Board also noted this was a successive petition, which is impermissible when the prior petition was not successful and no new grievances have arisen. The Applicant's repeated, untimely filings have led the Board to consider declaring him a vexatious litigant under Rule 10430. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed in its entirety.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelysuccessive petitionjurisdictionalMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com.Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
14
Case No. ADJ10964379
Regular
Jun 25, 2019

SERGIO GONZALES vs. POWER SCAFFOLD SERVICE, STARSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ENSTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant. This was because a petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a "final" order that determines substantive rights or liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. The WCJ's April 8, 2019 Findings of Fact regarding the defendant's ability to return the applicant to its MPN was determined to be an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as not being properly before the Board.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionRemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
4
Case No. ADJ9344182, ADJ9344101
Regular
Jul 29, 2019

ROSA COREAS vs. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, ENSTAR (US), INC.

This case involved applicant Rosa Coreas's claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while employed by Langer Juice Company. The core dispute concerned whether the defendant acted in bad faith by refusing to agree to an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) or a joint request for additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels for psychiatric and neurological evaluations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the initial decision, finding that the defendant's refusal did not constitute bad faith or frivolous tactics under Labor Code Section 5813. The Board noted that both parties could have handled the situation better and that the case was distinguishable from prior precedent requiring such agreements. Ultimately, the Board determined there was no good cause to overturn the administrative law judge's decision denying sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminersQualified Medical EvaluatorsPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsBad Faith ActionsLabor Code Section 5813Administrative Director Rule 31.7Medical-Legal Report
References
1
Case No. ADJ7047287, ADJ7047274
Regular
Jun 06, 2014

FRANCISCO MARTINEZ vs. BORDIER'S NURSERY, INC., AARLA/CLARENDON/ENSTAR SEABRIGHT; CYPRESS INSURANCE administered by BHHS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant insurer's petition for reconsideration. The insurer sought to overturn a prior award finding the applicant sustained cumulative spinal and extremity injuries. The Board found the applicant's date of injury, for statute of limitations purposes, was October 9, 2009, which was subsequent to his layoff. This date also satisfied the condition for post-termination claims under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Finally, the Board affirmed that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinions constituted substantial evidence supporting the original award.

Cumulative injuryLabor Code 5412Labor Code 5500.5Post-termination claimLabor Code 3600(a)(10)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Substantial evidenceDate of injuryCompensable disabilityWage loss
References
2
Case No. ADJ628128 (RDG 0130262) ADJ7454093
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

LARRY TRIPLETT vs. NORDIC INDUSTRIES, EAGLE INSURANCE, ENSTAR, KIN ENTERPRISES, INCOPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Larry Triplett's industrial injury claims against Nordic Industries and Kin Enterprises. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address Nordic Industries' arguments against the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings, including disputes over dual employment, evidence of cumulative trauma, and notice of injury. The WCAB rescinded the prior award, finding it necessary to join and consider a third, overlapping cumulative trauma claim (ADJ7454084) with the current matters. The case is returned to the trial level for a comprehensive new decision addressing all issues, including insurance coverage and liability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryDual EmploymentJoint EmploymentTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryNotice of Claim
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13 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