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. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
Case No. ADJ7269472
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

SHARON EWEGBEMI vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury in the course of employment. The applicant argued exceptions to the going-and-coming rule, including special mission, dual purpose, special risk, and required vehicle exceptions. Reconsideration was granted because crucial hearing minutes and summary of evidence were missing from the record, and the original WCJ was unavailable. This prevents the Board from issuing a just decision and necessitates further review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionRequired Vehicle ExceptionCourse of EmploymentSidewalk InjuryConstructive PremisesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
Case No. GOL 96757
Regular
Jun 10, 2008

SA YANG LO vs. CUSTOM SENSORS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award, upholding the application of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board found that exceptions allowing for the 1997 Schedule did not apply, as the applicant's temporary disability indemnity extended beyond January 1, 2005, and no qualifying pre-2005 reports indicated permanent disability. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion regarding diminished future earning capacity unpersuasive, thus affirming the initial 9% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSA Yang LoCustom Sensors & TechnologiesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundGOL 96757Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9187841
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

LAURA SCHELBERT vs. CITY OF BRENTWOOD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Laura Schelbert's Petition for Removal in this case against the City of Brentwood. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, only granted when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would occur and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. The WCAB found that Schelbert failed to demonstrate these exceptional circumstances, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalDenying RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ9803332
Regular
Dec 06, 2019

DIETRA BURTS FORD (Deceased) vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Board also denied a petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances. The WCJ's report adequately addressed the petitioner's arguments.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10204439
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

JEFF SMITH vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Riverside's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Deputy Sheriff Jeff Smith's injury, sustained en route to mandatory employer-ordered training, fell under the "special mission" exception to the "going and coming rule." The training's deviation in location, time, and nature from Smith's regular duties satisfied the three-part test for a special mission. Therefore, Smith's injury was deemed to have arisen out of and occurred in the course of employment.

going and coming rulespecial mission exceptionspecial errand exceptionDeputy Sherifftraffic investigation classBen Clark Training Centermotor vehicle accidentcourse of employmentroutine dutiesemployer's benefit
References
Case No. ADJ6931203
Regular
Sep 30, 2015

JESUS AYALA vs. TRANSTAR INDUSTRIES, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jesus Ayala's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the petition seeking both reconsideration and removal was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ15203597; ADJ15203084; ADJ15203598
Regular
Aug 04, 2025

FRANCISCO AGUIRRE vs. CALIFORNIA DRYWALL CO.; THE HARTFORD

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.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCalifornia Drywall Co.The Hartford
References
Case No. ADJ10188134
Regular
Oct 03, 2018

MARLENY MAGALY LOPEZ VELASQUEZ vs. AZTECA JEANS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Marleny Lopez Velasquez's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. The Board found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were issued. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequacy of RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,475 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