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. ADJ7874883
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

ENRIQUE ESPINOZA vs. MARTIN PROPERTIES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Enrique Espinoza's Petition for Reconsideration against Martin Properties and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition not being timely filed. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalTimely FiledWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeSedgwick Claims Management ServicesMartin PropertiesEnrique EspinozaAnaheim District Office
References
Case No. ADJ7838891
Regular
Jan 07, 2014

, Nelson Paul Espinoza vs. STAPLES, INC., and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the initial award. The Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and amended the award. Specifically, the Board affirmed the finding of injury AOE/COE to the applicant's right knee and low back, but removed the left knee from the compensable injuries. The applicant had argued the medical evaluations were not substantial evidence and the defendant had a continuing obligation to pay benefits.

WCABADJ7838891EspinozaStaples IncAce American Insurance CompanyESISPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEAgreed Medical Evaluators
References
Case No. ADJ7069022
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

JAVIER ESPINOZA vs. VALET DETAIL SERVICE, Doing Business As YOUR VALET, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision barring applicant Javier Espinoza from benefits. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report finding Espinoza lacked credibility and did not sustain his burden of proving an industrial injury. The WCJ's credibility findings, given great weight, were based on Espinoza's attributed work-related symptoms and his seeking medical treatment months after termination and subsequent self-employment. The Board also noted that while Espinoza's employer may not have complied with all notice requirements, this was irrelevant as no industrial injury was found.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code 3550Labor Code 3551industrial injurypost-termination defenseLabor Code 3600(a)(10)
References
Case No. ADJ6760596
Regular
May 23, 2018

SAMUEL ESPINOZA vs. EXCEL STAFFING SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior decision regarding applicant Samuel Espinoza's work injury. The Board increased Espinoza's lumbar spine Whole Person Impairment (WPI) from 29% to 45%, based on the agreed medical examiner's alternative rating which was deemed more accurate. Consequently, Espinoza's permanent disability rating was increased from 43% to 57%. The Board also deferred the issue of mileage reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWhole Person Impairmentlumbar spineagreed medical examinerAMA Guidespermanent disabilitysexual dysfunctionurological issues
References
Case No. ADJ10056628
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

RON ESPINOZA vs. CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTY SERVICES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSUANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over temporary disability indemnity for an injured crane operator, Ron Espinoza. The defendant argues Espinoza's termination for cause should bar his indemnity claim, while the EDD contends its lien for SDI payments was improperly limited. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board requires a proper analysis of whether Espinoza's termination was justified, as opposed to the trial judge's prior reasoning about rehire possibility.

Temporary disability indemnityPetition for reconsiderationFindings Orders and AwardLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)Lien claimant Employment Development Department (EDD)Dismissal for causeRefusal to workEstoppelSuitable modified workJustified termination
References
Case No. ADJ6748204
Regular
Jan 17, 2012

Stewart Espinoza vs. Los Angeles County Jail, Tristar Irvine

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a judge's finding of employment for inmate Stewart Espinoza. The Board found that Espinoza, an inmate injured while working in the County Jail kitchen, was not an employee for workers' compensation purposes. This was because a County ordinance allowed inmates to be compelled to perform labor, negating a voluntary employment relationship. Therefore, the applicant was not an employee entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLos Angeles County Jailinmate laboremployee statusvoluntary workcompulsory laborPenal Code Section 4017Government Code Section 25359SCIF v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Childs)Parsons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ8142245
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

TRINIDAD POLANCO ESPINOZA vs. RYNSBURGER DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision concerning Trinidad Polanco Espinoza's claim against Ryn sburger Dairy and Zenith Insurance Company. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge, who determined that Espinoza's claimed industrial injuries were not supported by the evidence. The judge found the claim barred by the post-termination defense and lack of credible medical evidence or timely reporting of the injury. Consequently, the Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration.

WCABReconsiderationDeniedIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEPost-TerminationStatute of LimitationsDWC-1Employer NoticeMedical Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ8641626
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

SYLVIA ESPINOZA vs. SALINAS VALLEY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE

This case concerns whether an employer's offer of work triggers a decrease in permanent disability benefits. The applicant initially became permanent and stationary (P&S) in November 2012, and the employer made a timely offer of regular work. However, the applicant's condition later worsened, and she was declared P&S again in July 2013 with new restrictions. The Appeals Board found that while the applicant did not qualify for an increase in benefits, the employer could not rely on the prior offer for a decrease because her condition and restrictions had significantly changed. Therefore, no adjustment to the permanent disability rate was applied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSylvia EspinozaSalinas Valley Memorial HealthcareAcclamation Insurance Management ServicesPermanent and Stationary (P&S) reportLabor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A)Agreed Medical Examiner (AME)Robert SteinerM.D.permanent disability rate
References
Case No. ADJ8877250, ADJ8877252
Regular
Nov 25, 2015

Tomas Espinoza vs. SBEEG HOLDINGS, LLC, NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

This case involves applicant Tomas Espinoza's petition for reconsideration after his workers' compensation cases were dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal stemmed from his failure to appear at a mandatory settlement conference on May 4, 2015. Espinoza argued good cause existed for his non-appearance, presenting a nearly illegible doctor's note dated September 14, 2015. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the provided documentation did not explain his absence at the crucial May 4th hearing. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the illegible note did not establish good cause for the initial failure to appear.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceFailure to AppearDismissal Without PrejudiceGood CauseMedical ReasonsDoctor's NoteIllegible Document
References
Case No. ADJ10541840
Regular
Nov 10, 2016

FRANCIS ESPINOZA vs. COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the Board granted reconsideration to further review the issues. However, the Defendant subsequently withdrew their Petition for Reconsideration. Consequently, the Board has dismissed the Defendant's Petition. The decision to dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration was issued after the Defendant's withdrawal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedCommercial Metals CompanyAmerican Zurich Insurance CompanyFrancis EspinozaADJ10541840San Francisco District OfficeDecision After Reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 39 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