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. ADJ10538690
Regular
Apr 24, 2018

GONZALO SANTOS MORENO vs. GARZA CONTRACTING

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Gonzalo Santos Moreno, versus his employer, Garza Contracting. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior findings but amended them to correct the date of injury to July 14, 2016. Crucially, the amended findings also state that the applicant's specific industrial injury was caused by his intoxication by alcohol.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactReport and Recommendationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJAMENDEDaverage earningsindustrial injuryintoxication by alcohol
References
0
Case No. ADJ9950339
Regular
Jan 05, 2017

JAMES GARZA vs. OREILLYS AUTO PARTS, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied James Garza's Petition for Removal because it found the WCJ's determination that the orthopedic panel was correct was within the WCAB's jurisdiction. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result, and reconsideration is an inadequate remedy. The WCAB was not persuaded that these conditions were met. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalMedical Unit PanelOrthopedic PanelJurisdictionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
2
Case No. ADJ2381643
Regular
Jan 11, 2010

EMILIO GARZA vs. WATERFLOW IRRIGATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal regarding a 100% permanent disability finding for Emilio Garza, who sustained injuries to multiple body parts. The defendant argued against the 100% rating, citing stipulated reports at 87% and a lack of vocational expert testimony. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding substantial evidence supported the WCJ's decision, particularly Dr. Ponton's neuropsychological opinion that the applicant could not compete in the open labor market due to cognitive, emotional, and physical limitations. The Board also found the defendant's contentions regarding apportionment and the RS Medical lien to be without merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmilio GarzaWaterflow IrrigationState Compensation Insurance FundIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityAgreed medical examination reportsVocational rehabilitationCognitive Disorder NOSTraumatic brain injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ8270940
Regular
Oct 24, 2016

UBALDO GARZA vs. CITY OF FRESNO, Permissibly Self-Insured C/O RISICO Claims Management

This case concerns applicant Ubaldo Garza's claim for industrial psychiatric injury following a 2005 shooting incident. The defendant, City of Fresno, argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the claim was timely filed because applicant received compensable psychiatric treatment in July 2011. This treatment was deemed related to the 2005 injury, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion, and occurred within one year of filing the application. Therefore, the City's statute of limitations defense failed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUbaldo GarzaCity of Fresnopolice officerindustrial injuryright armlegspsychiatric injurycompensable consequencestatute of limitations
References
1
Case No. ADJ18724961; ADJ15255319
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Tina Garza vs. County of Kern

Defendant County of Kern sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Discovery Order which determined that Dr. Scott Graham was the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for both claims and that defendant waived its right to a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) examination. The defendant argued that the waiver finding was improper and they were entitled to a new medical-legal evaluation panel. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings, primarily due to an inadequate record and deficiencies in the minutes of hearing. The Board also noted that based on current Labor Code interpretations, the parties' agreement to an AME once initiated, generally precludes subsequent QME panel requests for submitted issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel QMEMedical-Legal ExaminationWaiver of RightLabor Code Section 4062.2Labor Code Section 4062.3Navarro v. City of Montebello
References
9
Case No. ADJ6914901, ADJ3554819 (GRO 0003162), ADJ1000021 (GRO 0002782)
Regular
Mar 07, 2016

OSIEL GARZA vs. COUNTY OF TULARE, CORVEL

The WCAB granted the employer's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that required claims handlers to appear at a status conference. The Board found the mandatory appearance of claims handlers from out of the local area to be burdensome and costly, causing substantial prejudice. While affirming the general order to rescind a previous award, the WCAB amended it to remove the personal appearance requirement for the claims handlers. This decision emphasizes that defense counsel's presence and a claims handler's availability by phone generally suffice for such conferences.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDecision After RemovalOrder Rescinding Findings of FactAwardand OrdersCounty of TulareCorvelState Compensation Insurance FundWCJ
References
5
Case No. ADJ3975377 (LAO 0876515)
Regular
Sep 01, 2016

RUBEN GARZA vs. CALSTRIP INDUSTRIES, UNITED FIDELITY \& GUARANTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision. The Board found that the medical opinion regarding apportionment of the applicant's psychological disability lacked substantial evidence, as it failed to explain the reasoning behind the proposed percentages. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further medical development on this issue. The Board also denied reconsideration of the attorney's fees awarded.

Petition for ReconsiderationApportionmentPsychiatric DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionFurther DevelopmentDr. NogalesIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityAttorney's Fee
References
1
Case No. ADJ10072624
Regular
Nov 30, 2017

BARBARA GARZA vs. BARBOSA CABINETS, INC., APPLIED RISK

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant filed a Petition for Removal challenging a discovery order from the WCJ. Subsequently, the parties entered into a stipulation and order resolving their dispute. This resolution rendered the Petition for Removal moot and withdrawn. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalPretrial Conference Statement Orderdiscovery disputemootwithdrawnStipulation and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdministrative Law JudgeBarbosa Cabinets
References
0
Case No. ADJ9437585
Regular
May 04, 2015

JUANA CASTANEYRA vs. GARZA CONTRACTING, CALIFORNIA FARM MANAGEMENT, INTERCARE

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the prior order was not a final determination of substantive rights. The Board granted removal on its own motion to correct an incomplete adjudication of the Medical Provider Network (MPN) dispute. The WCJ prematurely found the applicant was not required to treat within the MPN without addressing the employer's liability for self-procured treatment. The case is returned to the trial level for full adjudication of the MPN issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJSelf-procured treatmentExpedited hearing
References
3
Case No. ADJ2242917
Regular
Feb 09, 2011

HERIBERTO HERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ, ROSALVA RODRIGUEZ vs. AA CONTRACTING, dba GARZA CONTRACTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a fatal industrial injury where the initial award of death benefits was found to be internally inconsistent and ambiguous by the WCJ. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's subsequent decision, arguing the WCJ erred in denying jurisdiction to correct the erroneous award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ's reserved jurisdiction and the ambiguity of the award allowed for correction. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings to resolve the benefit and attorney fee amounts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsPartial DependentsJudicial ErrorLabor Code Section 5803Reservation of JurisdictionReconsiderationRescindAmendFindings of Fact
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 19 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