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. ADJ8180167
Regular
Nov 24, 2014

PASQUAL GARIBAY vs. CALIFORNIA TOWING, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pasqual Garibay's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The WCJ's decision was served on September 8, 2014, and the petition was filed on October 2, 2014, exceeding the 20-day filing deadline for personally served decisions. Since the petition was filed more than 20 days after service and without a mailing extension, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceWCJ's DecisionDismissalSan Bernardino District OfficePasqual Garibay
References
7
Case No. ADJ9866898
Regular
Sep 28, 2018

MARIA GARIBAY vs. CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES RESTAURANTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration in Maria Garibay's case. The denial was based on the finding that the parties failed to follow the mandatory procedure outlined in Labor Code section 4062.2 for obtaining a medical-legal evaluation. This statute dictates a specific process involving agreement or a QME panel selection, which was not demonstrated to have been followed in this case. Therefore, the petition was denied as the necessary procedural requirements were not met.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 4062.2Medical-legal evaluationQME panelAgreed medical evaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedDisputed issueRepresented employeeInjury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8984416
Regular
Nov 08, 2016

MARIA GARIBAY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision, which had denied an applicant's claim for psychiatric injury based on the good faith personnel action defense. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports were deficient regarding causation percentages. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record, specifically to obtain a report from the AME addressing the percentage of causation for each workplace incident. This is to allow for a meaningful review of the WCJ's future decision on predominant and substantial cause.

Good faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3psyche injurypredominant causesubstantial causeAgreed Medical Evaluatorpsychiatric disabilitycausation percentagesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ9897411
Regular
Dec 02, 2016

MARI GARIBAY vs. ALEXANDRIA CARE CENTER, SEDGWICK

The Applicant filed a Petition for Removal seeking to challenge a Minute Order setting the case for trial. However, subsequent to the filing of the petition, the trial was taken off calendar. Both the Applicant's Labor Code section 132a claim and the remainder of the case were settled by private agreement and an Order Approving Compromise and Release. Therefore, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot.

Petition for RemovalMinute OrderTrialLabor Code section 132a claimCompromise and ReleasemootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAlexandria Care CenterSedgwick
References
0
Case No. ADJ6404616, ADJ6590120
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

GILBERTO GARIBAY vs. BALL HORTICULTURAL COMPANY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from interlocutory orders concerning procedural and evidentiary matters, not a "final" order determining substantive rights. The Board reasoned that such pre-trial rulings do not resolve any fundamental questions of liability or entitlement. Furthermore, the Petition for Removal was denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying immediate intervention. Consequently, the Board found no grounds for either reconsideration or removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionRemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
11
Case No. ADJ10015407
Regular
Feb 11, 2019

ARACELI MELGOZA GARIBAY vs. SILVERADO FARMING COMPANY INC., SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an amended finding that awarded the applicant 61% permanent partial disability at a rate of $290.00. While the WCAB affirmed the 61% disability rating, finding Dr. Shaw's reports substantial evidence and agreeing that bilateral upper extremity impairments should be added due to synergistic effect, it deferred the issue of the permanent disability indemnity rate. The case was returned to the WCJ for further development of the record regarding the applicant's average weekly earning capacity for the purpose of determining the correct indemnity rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityQualified Medical ExaminerCombined Values ChartSeasonal Agricultural LaborerBilateral Wrist PainCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMyalgia
References
3
Case No. ADJ6552734
Regular
Apr 02, 2015

Diane Garibay-Jimenez vs. Santa Barbara Medical Foundation Clinic, Zurich American Insurance

This case concerns a denied request for left ulnar nerve decompression surgery. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) upheld the denial, finding the applicant failed to provide necessary Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) reports to the Independent Medical Review (IMR), making a further review unreasonable. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's order. The WCAB found the defendant failed to comply with Labor Code section 4610.5(l) by not providing all relevant medical records to IMR, thus invalidating the prior IMR determination. The matter was returned for a new IMR application, holding the defendant responsible for submitting complete records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiane Garibay-JimenezSanta Barbara Medical Foundation ClinicZurich American InsuranceADJ6552734Opinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationExpedited Findings of Fact and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization Review
References
0
Showing 1-7 of 7 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