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. ADJ7915283
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

GUILLERMO LEMUS vs. G & K MANAGEMENT, INC., CHUBB INSURANCE GROUP, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant, Guillermo Lemus, and defendants G & K Management, Inc., and Chubb Insurance Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration filed in this matter. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, noting the petition was skeletal and unverified. Even on the merits, the petition would have been denied based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCABAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantUnverifiedSkeletalDismissalChubb Insurance GroupGallagher Bassett ServicesG&K Management
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04933 [186 AD3d 1351]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2020

Lemus v. New York B Realty Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries while maneuvering heavy steel beams at ground level on a construction site. He filed a lawsuit against the building owner, New York B Realty Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, ruling that the plaintiff's injuries did not stem from an elevation-related risk as contemplated by the statute. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's judgment, agreeing that Labor Law § 240 (1) is applicable only to injuries resulting from physically significant elevation differentials and inadequate safety devices against such risks, which were not present in this case.

Construction site injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related riskJudgment as a matter of lawWorker safetySteel beamsGround level hazardAppellate reviewPersonal injuryPremises liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ11556777
Regular
Oct 02, 2020

LISANDRO LEMUS vs. SGL TECHNIC, LLC, SOMPO AMERICA

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Lisandro Lemus's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition to be moot and incorporated the reasoning from the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without prejudice.

Petition for RemovalWCJ reportmootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalLisandro LemusSGL TechnicSompo AmericaADJ11556777Los Angeles District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ2655171 (LAO 0886561) ADJ1429155 (LAO 0862514)
Regular
May 22, 2012

GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ vs. MCKESSON CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

This case involves reconsideration sought by both applicant Guillermo Hernandez and defendant McKesson Corporation/Sedgwick CMS, Inc., regarding prior decisions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration because an initial review indicated the need for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Pending the decision after reconsideration, all communications must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not with any district office or e-filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration GrantedMcKesson CorporationSedgwick CMSInc.Guillermo HernandezStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ3767193
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

MARIA CARMEN LEMUS vs. J. G. BOSWELL COMPANY, ACCLAMATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by J.G. Boswell Company and Acclamation against Maria Carmen Lemus. The dismissal was primarily because the Petition was not verified. Even if it had been verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed in its entirety.

Petition for RemovalDismissalVerified PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportMeritProcedural DefectLegal DocumentAdministrative Law JudgeApplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ4698232 (RIV 0076516)
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

GUILLERMO CANAS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES RIVERSIDE

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) right to file an application on behalf of an injured worker, Guillermo Canas, against the State of California. The defendant, SCIF, argued CIGA lacked standing, and its claim was barred by laches and the statute of limitations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed its prior decision, holding CIGA is a "party in interest" with standing to file. The WCAB found CIGA's application was not barred by the statute of limitations as it was filed within the statutory period. Finally, the WCAB clarified that legal issues, like those concerning uninsured state agencies, not raised at trial are waived and premature to consider.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSCIFCIGAstandinglachesstatute of limitationsreconsiderationparty in interestcumulative traumaLabor Code section 5501
References
13
Case No. ADJ977533 (GOL 0101844)
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

VICTOR LEMUS vs. BACARA RESORT & SPA, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, Bacara Resort & Spa and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, regarding a September 24, 2013 decision. The applicant is Victor Lemus. The defendants have withdrawn their petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardBacara Resort & SpaLiberty Mutual Fire Insurance CompanyVictor LemusADJ977533GOL 0101844Van Nuys District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ7631357
Regular
May 07, 2014

GUILLERMO MADRIGAL OCHOA vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICE CONCEPTS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Guillermo Madrigal Ochoa's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on the merits. The dismissal is based on the administrative law judge's report, which the Board adopted and incorporated by reference. The order was filed and served on May 7, 2014.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimelyWCJ ReportAdopt and IncorporateDenied on MeritsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeExecutive Office ConceptsInsurance Company of the West
References
0
Case No. ADJ12910087
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

ESTHER LEMUS SALDANA vs. TAO TAI HOMES CORPORATION, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns a dispute over the correct Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel for applicant Esther Lemus Saldana. The defendant sought reconsideration of an order finding the applicant's chiropractic QME panel valid and the defendant's orthopedic panel invalid. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found the applicant properly requested a new panel after retaining counsel, and despite a service error on the chiropractic panel, the defendant had opportunity to contest the specialty. Therefore, the applicant's chiropractic QME panel remains the correct one for the medical-legal evaluation.

QME PanelChiropractic QMEOrthopedic QMEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersMedical-Legal EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorAdministrative Director RuleRomero v. Costco WholesaleLabor Code Section 4062.1
References
9
Case No. ADJ12194461
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

Antonio Lemus vs. STEVE P. RADOS, INC., STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Antonio Lemus's entitlement to home health care following an admitted industrial head injury. Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award enforcing a Utilization Review (UR) determination that modified but approved home health aide services. The defendant argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to enforce the UR determination due to a second, later UR denial of the same request, which they claimed was timely. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding jurisdiction to enforce the initial UR approval and deeming the subsequent denial an improper "self-granted appeal." The Board concluded the applicant was entitled to the treatment approved by the first UR determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewFindings Orders and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationNurse Case ManagerTraumatic Brain InjuryHome Health AideMedical Treatment
References
2
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