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. ADJ433589 (VNO 0467795)
Regular
Dec 19, 2013

GLADYS GIRON vs. JUDITH LARSON, IDEAL FOODS, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gladys Giron's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board admonished applicant's counsel for multiple procedural violations in the petition, including exceeding page limits with improper formatting and appending improperly admitted evidence. Furthermore, the petition's tone bordered on impugning the Workers' Compensation Judge's integrity, which is sanctionable. Finally, an unfiled Response was submitted by applicant's counsel.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportApplicant's CounselPage Limit ViolationFont Size ViolationLinespacing ViolationRule 10842(c)Rule 10856Catering Truck and Route AgreementSworn Statement
References
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
Case No. ADJ1468790 (RIV 0078105)
Regular
Feb 21, 2014

AUSTREBERTO FLORES, EFIGENIA FLORES vs. CARSON CAPITAL CORPORATION, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that applicants failed to prove a serious and willful violation or safety violation causing the decedent's death. The WCJ found the employer had no knowledge of the cart's mechanical issues, deeming the throttle spring break a spontaneous event. The Board upheld this, giving more weight to the credible testimony of the employer and defense witness over unsworn hearsay statements from co-employees not produced for cross-examination. A dissenting commissioner argued for further development of the record, noting consistent employee statements suggesting employer knowledge of mechanical problems and failure to act.

Serious and willful violationSafety violationDeath benefitsCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompetent hearsayDeposeCross-examinationCredibility findings
References
Case No. ADJ7661001
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

ADRIAN ZAMORA vs. ROOFING SUPPLY GROUP, LLC, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to rescind an order that took the matter off calendar pending the Medical Unit's action on a replacement QME panel request. The defendant claimed untimeliness and violations regarding QME reports and repeatedly requested a new panel from the Medical Unit without response. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and noting the Medical Unit had no record of the defendant's requests.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQME PanelMedical UnitOff CalendarIndustrial InjuryLoaderOrthopedicsTimely ReportsStatutory Violations
References
Case No. ADJ3566620 (SBR 0331934) ADJ3758235 (SBR 0336076)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

MELANIE MEDBERY vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Payless Shoe Source's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and lower extremity. Crucially, they affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that Payless violated Labor Code section 132a by unlawfully terminating the applicant. The employer's stated reason for termination, a violation of the attendance policy, was deemed pretextual and not supported by the evidence or the company's own handbook.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryRight Lower Extremity InjuryLabor Code Section 132aViolationDiscriminationDifferential Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ10240846 ADJ12102657
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

JORGE REYES ORTIZ vs. PEDERSON FENCE & PATIO COMPANY, INC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that denied sanctions, costs, and attorney's fees against the defendant. The applicant argued the defendant violated Labor Code section 4062.3 by improperly communicating with a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding no violation of the prohibition against ex parte communications because the applicant's attorney was copied on the communication. Furthermore, any alleged procedural defect in serving information on the QME was either waived or not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant the requested relief. The Board also affirmed the denial of sanctions, finding no evidence of bad faith tactics by the defendant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderSanctionsAttorney's FeesReimbursementLabor Code Section 5710ViolationSection 4062.3Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ200334 (AHM 0135288) ADJ3702208 (AHM 0135291)
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

TERESA MORALES vs. GRIFFIN PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, STRATUS REAL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order disallowing a lien and imposing sanctions. The lien claimant, Orthogear, LLC, failed to appear at two scheduled lien trial dates, and the Appeals Board found no excusable neglect. The Board also admonished the petitioner's representative for violating court rules regarding font size in their petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantExcusable NeglectSanctionsLabor Code §5813Joint Petition for ReconsiderationFailure to AppearWCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdmonished
References
Case No. ADJ8079940
Regular
Nov 01, 2012

SANTOS ALVARADO vs. AMERIPEC, INC., COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney, Albert A. Navarra, in the matter of Santos Alvarado v. Ameripex, Inc. The Board dismissed the petition because it was not properly served on all adverse parties, violating Labor Code section 5905. Even if properly served, the Board would have denied the petition on the merits based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The Board also noted Mr. Navarra's history of rule violations in other cases, warning him of sanctions for future infractions.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5905service violationWCJ Report and Recommendationdeny on the meritsAlbert A. Navarrastate bar numberWCAB Rule 10845misrepresentation of recordWCAB Rule 10842
References
Case No. ADJ10662340
Regular
May 15, 2019

ANDREW DICKSON vs. PARTY CITY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely, filed 35 days after the WCJ's order instead of within the 20-day limit. The petition was also unverified, a defect applicant failed to correct after the WCJ noted it. Furthermore, the petition violated WCAB rules by attaching previously filed documents and using a font size smaller than 12 points. Even if considered on the merits, the WCAB would have denied it, agreeing the original case dismissal for lack of prosecution was proper.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimely FilingUnverified PetitionLack of ProsecutionWCAB RulesAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Denying ObjectionSet Aside Order
References
Case No. ADJ5825581, ADJ9590533
Regular
Apr 13, 2015

ALBERT WAN vs. COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK (SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL), CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant's and defendant's petitions, affirming the trial judge's order. The Board found the defendant violated Labor Code Section 4062.3 by failing to serve sub rosa surveillance video on the applicant 20 days before providing it to the QME, resulting in the testimony and video being stricken. While the applicant sought attorney's fees for this violation, the Board found the conduct was a failure to serve information, not a prohibited "communication" under the statute, thus precluding mandatory attorney's fees under that section. However, the Board admonished defendant's counsel for discovery abuses and allowed the possibility of sanctions under Labor Code Section 5813 if bad faith is found.

Sub rosa videoLabor Code section 4062.3Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)depositiondiscovery violationpetition for removalpetition for reconsiderationattorney's feessanctionsDWC Rule 35
References
Showing 1-10 of 870 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