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. 09 Cr. 339
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Guerrero

This opinion addresses motions filed by defendants Edwin Maldonado and Antonio Guerrero, seeking to set aside jury verdicts and obtain new trials after their June 7, 2010 convictions related to the Solid Gold drug organization. Maldonado's motion cited issues with witness testimony, government vouching, attacks on defense counsel, and the denial of recalling a witness. Guerrero's motion argued insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of prior bad acts, and statute of limitations concerns regarding the predicate narcotics conspiracy. The court meticulously reviewed each of their arguments, finding no grounds for reversal or a new trial for either defendant. Ultimately, all motions by Maldonado and Guerrero were denied, affirming their convictions.

Criminal LawMurderNarcotics ConspiracyRacketeeringFed. R. Cr. P. 29Fed. R. Cr. P. 33Judgment of AcquittalNew Trial MotionSufficiency of EvidenceIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. ADJ1511657
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

LESTER GUERRERO vs. DUANE WHITE, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Lester Guerrero was an employee of Duane White. The WCAB determined that Guerrero's drywall and painting work, performed for less than 52 hours, constituted activities incidental to the ownership, maintenance, and use of a dwelling. Therefore, Guerrero is excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)incidental to dwelling ownershipresidential remodelingcasual or minor activityhomeowner exclusionscope of employmentemployee statusfinding of fact
References
10
Case No. ADJ10140724, ADJ10438616
Regular
Feb 11, 2020

JOSE BARRERA ESTRADA vs. SOUTH BAY PRE-OWNED INC.; PETE GUERRERO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Pete Guerrero's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely filed, more than 25 days after the relevant August 29, 2019 Order Approving Compromise & Release. The Board also noted the petition was unverified and skeletal, lacking specificity as required by law. Guerrero was a party to prior proceedings and had notice of the settlement. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionJurisdictional Time LimitCompromise & ReleaseJoint Opinion and OrderUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundWCJ Report and RecommendationOrder Approving Compromise & Release
References
4
Case No. ADJ7930654
Regular
Oct 23, 2013

MAURICIO ROQUE GUERRERO vs. STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS ACQUISITION CORPORATION, dba BURGER KING, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ7930654, involves applicant Mauricio Roque Guerrero and defendants Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Corporation (Burger King) and New Hampshire Insurance Company. The Board has denied Guerrero's Petition for Reconsideration. This denial is based on the Board's review of the record and adoption of the findings in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdenial of reconsiderationStrategic Restaurants Acquisition CorporationBurger KingNew Hampshire Insurance CompanyBroadspireCrawford CompanyADJ7930654
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2006

Guerrero v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

Plaintiff Mary Guerrero sued Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for employment discrimination under Title VII and the NYHRL, alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation by her supervisor, Daren Arrington. Arrington made offensive remarks, including a comment about her weight and calling her names. Although defendant reprimanded Arrington for one incident, plaintiff ultimately resigned after being transferred to a new department with an unfavorable schedule. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding Arrington's conduct not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment and that plaintiff failed to prove retaliation, as she was agreeable to the transfer at the time and defendant provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the reassignment.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawHostile work environmentRetaliationSummary judgmentSupervisor harassmentWorkplace conductResignationFederal court
References
31
Case No. ADJ6956331
Regular
Jul 25, 2014

EDWARD GUERRERO vs. CONNECT TELEVISION, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Edward Guerrero's Petition for Reconsideration against Connect Television and Alaska National Insurance Company. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed. Furthermore, the Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition failed to state valid grounds for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyGrounds for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationAdopt and IncorporateLaughlin Falbo Levy & MoresiADJ6956331
References
0
Case No. ADJ9621120, ADJ9621126
Regular
Jan 05, 2017

OFELIA GARCIA GUERRERO vs. HAWK II ENVIROMENTAL, CNA CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Ofelia Garcia Guerrero's Petition for Removal in cases ADJ9621120 and ADJ9621126. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied. Furthermore, the WCAB found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision be issued later. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report in its denial.

Petition for RemovalDeniedSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyExtraordinary RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportVan Nuys District Office
References
2
Case No. ADJ6885827
Regular
Feb 10, 2010

WILFRED GUERRERO vs. DAVLYN INVESTMENTS INC., ZENITH SAN DIEGO

In *Guerrero*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to compel the applicant to receive medical treatment solely within a Medical Provider Network (MPN), but the WCAB found the WCJ's order taking the matter off-calendar was not a final order. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal. The WCAB noted that Labor Code section 4605 permits employees to obtain self-procured medical treatment at their own expense.

MPNself-procureoff-calendarexpedited hearingreconsiderationremovalfinal ordersubstantive rightsirreparable harmextraordinary remedy
References
8
Case No. SFO 0489218
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

JOSE FACUNDO-GUERRERO vs. NURSERYMEN'S EXCHANGE, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Jose Facundo-Guerrero's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on February 24, 2005. The primary issue is whether the statutory limit of 24 chiropractic treatments applies, as the applicant had already received more than this number before his claim was accepted. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision that the 24-visit limit under Labor Code section 4604.5(d)(1) applies to this injury date, denying further chiropractic treatment visits beyond the cap but allowing for visits necessary for managing his care.

Labor Code Section 4604.5(d)(1)Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Chiropractic treatment limitationPermanent and Stationary reportCalifornia Constitutional MandateEqual Protection ClauseWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Findings and Award
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 34 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