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. ADJ6528393
Regular
May 18, 2012

OFELIA SALCEDO vs. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, CHUBB GROUP

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This was because the Board found that neither the treating physician's reports nor the QME's report constituted substantial evidence to support the original award. The Board requires further development of the record, potentially through re-evaluations with both physicians, to properly assess the applicant's permanent disability. Therefore, the defendant's contentions regarding evidentiary issues are currently moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOfelia SalcedoP.F. Chang's China BistroChubb GroupReconsiderationFindings Orders and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLeft HandFourth and Fifth Digits
References
Case No. ADJ7688900
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

HARLETHE MORA vs. FIFTH & PACIFIC COMPANIES, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Mora v. Fifth & Pacific Companies*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken to allow the Board further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The WCAB will conduct further proceedings as deemed necessary to reach a just and reasoned decision. All subsequent filings related to this petition must be submitted directly to the WCAB's Commissioners in San Francisco, not the district office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationFifth & Pacific CompaniesLiz ClaiborneLucky Brand JeansHartford Casualty Insurance CompanyBradsireADJ7688900Los Angeles District Office
References
Case No. ADJ4227582
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

BOBBY CLEMENTS vs. GEORGE REED, INC., TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves an applicant seeking removal of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) after an order compelling disclosure of specific records. The applicant claimed bias, Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and privacy rights for corporate records. The Appeals Board denied the petition, clarifying that removal requires more than disagreement with a ruling and that the Fifth Amendment privilege is waived when a party initiates litigation and the requested information is relevant to their claim. The Board found no evidence of bias and ruled that the applicant could not use the privilege to obstruct relevant discovery essential for the defendant's defense.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasFifth Amendmentself-incriminationevidentiary privilegespatient-litigant exceptionwaiverdiscoveryadministrative law judgeworkers' compensation
References
Case No. ADJ9976213 ADJ9977047
Regular
Jun 01, 2016

## MATTHEW SMITH, vs. ## ACTION ROOFING; SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES,

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought to delay his trial due to pending criminal charges for fraud. The applicant argued that participating in the workers' compensation proceedings would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, causing prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his petition for removal, finding that the defendant's interest in expeditiously resolving the case and continuing benefit payments outweighed the applicant's Fifth Amendment concerns. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that stays of civil proceedings due to parallel criminal cases are discretionary and not automatically granted.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationWorkers' Compensation FraudPetition to DismissSuspension of BenefitsRestitutionDepositionCrime of Moral TurpitudeDeclaration of Readiness
References
Case No. ADJ6487778
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

SERGIO ZAMORA vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, ZÜRICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Findings and Award that determined the applicant sustained a 100% permanent disability due to an industrial injury. The defendant argued the WCJ erred in deeming the applicant unemployable and sought apportionment of psychiatric disability. However, the parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement via Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter to the trial level for settlement finalization.

Sergio ZamoraTaylor Fresh FoodsZurich North AmericaADJ6487778Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDryer OperatorIndustrial InjuryRight HandThird Finger
References
Case No. ADJ187153 (AHM 0108802), ADJ2066706 (AHM 0108887)
Regular
May 18, 2009

BEVERLY PHILLIPS vs. WESTERN DIGITAL, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves an appeal regarding vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits awarded after Labor Code Section 139.5 was repealed. The defendant argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction due to the repeal, and the applicant was not a qualified injured worker. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to await a binding en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company* on the jurisdictional impact of the repeal. The current award was rescinded and returned to the trial level pending that precedent-setting decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceLabor Code Section 139.5RepealJurisdictionQualified Injured WorkerReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyAmicus Briefs
References
Case No. ADJ1683674
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

WILLIAM QUINN vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as interlocutory procedural decisions are not appealable. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the petition for disqualification of the WCJ was denied based on the WCJ's report. Finally, the Board rejected the petitioner's reliance on the Fifth Amendment due to a lack of relevance.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionRemovalDisqualificationWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyFifth Amendment
References
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
Case No. ADJ7818556
Regular
Nov 20, 2017

MARCOS CAMACHO vs. PIREATE STAFFING, LUMBERMEN'S INDEMNITY, In Liquidation, Administered By CIGA, EXCLUSIVE TENT RENTALS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ erred by drawing a negative inference and barring recovery based on the applicant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding Social Security numbers. The Board determined this assertion does not inherently undermine credibility or the claim's legitimacy. Crucially, the parties had stipulated to an industrial injury to the applicant's back, but the WCJ's flawed reasoning prevented any determination on apportionment, making the decision incomplete.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryHipsLower ExtremitiesPsycheFifth AmendmentSelf-Incrimination
References
Case No. ADJ4629373 (VNO 0532737) ADJ4177729 (VNO 0532739)
Regular
Mar 27, 2012

MIGUEL DELGADO vs. IFCO SYSTEMS NROTH AMERICA, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior order to dismiss the petition as untimely. The attorney's arguments regarding Fifth Amendment protections, inappropriateness of sanctions, and inconsistencies in defense counsel's testimony were rejected. Sanctions were imposed due to the attorney making false statements about the timeliness of his petition, not for delaying the case or for self-incrimination. The Board found the attorney's failure to appear at a hearing and subsequent new evidence did not warrant re-litigation of the timeliness issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsAttorney's FeesTimelinessFindings and AwardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedEx Parte CommunicationMisinformationLabor Code Section 5813
References
Showing 1-10 of 61 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