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. ADJ1046022
Regular
Apr 13, 2010

FRANCISCO MURILLO vs. BKC CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Francisco Murillo's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ) in reaching this decision. The order formally denies Murillo's request for the Board to revisit the case. The decision was filed on April 13, 2010.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdeny reconsiderationADJ1046022FRE 0243302BKC ConstructionState Compensation Insurance FundFrancisco Murilloadministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05574 [242 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order dismissing Luis Murillo's Labor Law claims (§ 241 (6) and § 200) and common-law negligence claim against Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, and related entities. The court held that Murillo, a worker responsible for debris removal, could not recover for injuries caused by the very condition he was tasked with remedying. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' common-law and contractual indemnity claims against third-party defendant William Erath & Son, Inc., concluding that Erath had no contractual duty to perform debris removal, and thus Murillo's accident did not arise out of Erath's work. The decision emphasizes the principle that responsibility for cleanup tasks dictates liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkDebris RemovalContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party Claim
References
6
Case No. 534352
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisco Leon

Claimant Francisco Leon, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained on January 30, 2020, after falling from a scaffold. The employer, Monadnock Construction Inc., and its carrier disputed the claim, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The carrier appealed the Board's ruling, contending it lacked substantial evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board holds broad authority in factual determinations, including witness credibility and drawing reasonable inferences from evidence. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Leon's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsScaffold AccidentWork-related InjuryAccidental Injury ClaimAppellate ReviewFactual DeterminationsSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ13901094
Regular
Jun 19, 2025

MONA MURILLO vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Mona Murillo filed a Petition for Reconsideration on March 20, 2025, challenging a December 13, 2024, Findings of Fact by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had found industrial injury to Murillo's facial bones and left knee, sustained while working for the California Department of Corrections, but also determined she could not collect permanent disability benefits while incarcerated. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that Murillo's Petition was both untimely, having been filed after the January 7, 2025, deadline, and unverified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactInmate LaborerIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability BenefitsIncarcerationUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5909
References
7
Case No. ADJ9919242
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

JAMES KIRCHER vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that a firefighter sustained an industrial injury to his heart and circulatory system when he experienced atrial arrhythmias during a mandatory work treadmill test. Although the Agreed Medical Examiner initially stated he wouldn't term the event an "injury," he later opined the arrhythmias were work-related and caused in part by job stress, leading to the applicant being taken off work. The Board concluded this constituted an injury under the Labor Code, resulting in temporary disability.

Atrial arrhythmiasTreadmill stress testAgreed Medical ExaminerWork mandated health checkIndustrial injuryTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityOccupational medicineCardiologyLabor Code section 3208
References
0
Case No. ADJ7908284
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

MARIA MURILLO vs. FEDEX SMART POST, PROTECTIVE INSURANCE

This case involves Maria Murillo's workers' compensation claim against FedEx Smart Post. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Murillo's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The WCAB emphasized that timely *receipt* by the Board, not just mailing, is required to meet jurisdictional filing deadlines. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDISMISSEDUNTimelyLABOR CODECALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONSJURISDICTIONALWCJ DECISIONSERVICE BY MAILPROOF OF MAILING
References
4
Case No. ADJ6788617
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

JOSE MURILLO vs. ROYAL PAPER BOX COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant appealed the finding of permanent total disability for applicant Jose Murillo, arguing the vocational evidence was unsubstantial and improperly considered non-industrial factors. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, finding the vocational expert's report constituted substantial evidence. The report concluded Murillo's multiple industrial impairments rendered him unable to participate in vocational rehabilitation or compete in the labor market. The Board specifically found the defendant's apportionment arguments unpersuasive.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earning CapacityAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentContra Costa County v. DahlVocational RehabilitationResidual Functional Capacity
References
1
Case No. ADJ9298777
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

JUAN FRANCISCO LARIOS vs. VALLEY FLEET CLEAN, SUSSEX INSURANCE, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Juan Francisco Larios' petition for reconsideration of a May 31, 2017 decision. This grant is to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved to ensure a just decision. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco and not through district offices or e-filing. The WCAB notes that trial-level documents unrelated to the reconsideration should still be filed as usual, but settlement documents require prompt notification to the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Rules of the Administrative Director
References
0
Case No. ADJ8540632
Regular
Oct 15, 2013

FRANCISCO MEDINA vs. SCRIPPS HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration in the case of Francisco Medina v. Scripps Health. The applicant alleged a psychiatric injury, but the employer successfully argued the defense of good faith personnel actions under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The Board adopted the WCJ's findings, finding the employer's actions, including performance improvement forms and issues related to English proficiency, were lawful, non-discriminatory, and made in good faith to address job performance deficiencies. Credible employer testimony and evidence supported these findings, leading to the denial of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.psychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionslabor code section 3208.3(h)Rolda v Pitney Bowespredominant causelawful
References
4
Case No. ADJ7813341
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

FRANCISCO LAZO vs. QUALITY STAFFING, ZURICH

This case concerns Francisco Lazo's workers' compensation claim against Quality Staffing and Zurich. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Lazo's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed more than 20 days after the WCJ's decision was personally served. California law requires such petitions to be *received* by the WCAB within the 20-day timeframe, not merely mailed. As the petition was untimely, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationPersonally ServedTimeliness20-Day LimitJurisdictionalWCJ DecisionWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 465 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