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. ADJ3512142 (MON 0288509)
Regular
Jan 12, 2009

JOSE LUIS LARA vs. BRATIFF HOME CORP. dba METRO DINER and SCOTT BROFFMAN as substantial shareholder; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was an employee of Metro Diner on the date of injury, concluding that he was an independent contractor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBratiff Home Corp.Metro DinerScott BroffmanUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundADJ3512142MON 0288509Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ8915260; ADJ8934657
Regular
May 22, 2014

SAMUEL ENRIQUEZ vs. GUILD AND ROBERT WEATHERBY, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied The Hartford's Petition for Removal, which sought to compel the applicant to use an interpreter from the defendant's medical provider network. The Board found that The Hartford failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify removal, as their liability for interpreter fees is statutorily limited to reasonable amounts regardless of the interpreter chosen. Reconsideration will serve as an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is eventually made.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceMedical Provider NetworkInterpreterFee ScheduleSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ1449948 (LAO 0777629) ADJ1052896 (LAO 0777628) ADJ1110587 (LAO 0777627) ADJ1924276 (LAO 0777626)
Regular
Jun 16, 2017

JOSE A. AVINA vs. HIGH-TECH SEATING PRODUCTS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, in liquidation, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Hartford's petition for reconsideration regarding a prior award for applicant Jose Avina's injuries. The Board affirmed the original award with a modification, striking one finding of fact deemed unnecessary. The Hartford's main contention was its liability for a specific injury outside its coverage period and an incorrect cumulative trauma end date. The Board's decision emphasizes joint and several liability for medical treatment and temporary disability among successive insurers.

California Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAFremont Indemnity CompanyHigh-Tech Seating ProductsGallagher Bassett ServicesThe HartfordLumbar Spine InjuryPsyche InjurySleep Disorder
References
Case No. ADJ3957329 (OAK 0162600) ADJ621097 (OAK 0183630)
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

JUDITH KRAFT vs. CORREY JAMESTOWN, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, FACILITY SYSTEMS, INC., BROADSPIRE CONCORD

Here's a summary for a lawyer in maximum four sentences: Hartford Insurance sought removal of an order requiring it to administer the applicant's future medical award for all body parts. Hartford argued this would cause irreparable harm by potentially barring reimbursement from CIGA for neck injury treatment, for which Hartford claims no current liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that potential prejudice to Hartford was outweighed by applicant's need for a single administrator and the judge's discretion to assign administration pending adjudication of neck injury liability. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing Hartford faces substantial prejudice and potential liability for an injury it did not insure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLow BackLeft AnkleNeckDistrict ManagerAccount Executive
References
Case No. ADJ8619481
Regular
Feb 06, 2014

MICAELA OROZCO vs. BABETTE BAKERY, INC., THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Micaela Orozco's petition for reconsideration against Babette Bakery, Inc. and The Hartford. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed untimely. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits as per the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's ReportAdministrative Law JudgeBabette BakeryThe HartfordADJ8619481
References
Case No. ADJ8514496
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

RONALD FLORES OPORTO vs. THE PRINT LAB, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Flores Oporto v. The Print Lab and The Hartford. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. They further extended great weight to the judge's credibility determination, as is customary in such matters. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8514496Van Nuys District OfficeTHE PRINT LABTHE HARTFORDRonald Flores Oporto
References
Case No. ADJ7192006
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

GENE GOODREAU vs. LAW OFFICES OF MARC ELLIOTT GROSSMAN, THE HARTFORD

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Law Offices of Marc Elliott Grossman and The Hartford, regarding a prior Findings and Award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the record and facilitate a just decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not with any district office or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCABLos Angeles District Office
References
Case No. ADJ917493 (POM 0267171) ADJ2258896 (POM 0267172) ADJ2289070 (POM 0267174) ADJ3263812 (LAO 0810082)
Regular
Mar 29, 2010

Benya Ridenoure vs. California Institute of Technology, STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND, ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE, HARTFORD INS.

This case concerns contribution claims between workers' compensation insurers (Hartford, SCIF, Royal) for an employee's cumulative trauma injuries at CalTech. The Board granted reconsideration to clarify insurer liability. The Board determined SCIF is not liable for contribution for the injury ending April 11, 2000, as its coverage predated the final year of exposure. For the injury ending September 7, 2001, Hartford is liable for contribution to Royal, with the exact amount to be adjusted based on proportionate coverage during that period.

Cumulative traumaDate of injuryCompensable temporary disabilityPermanent disabilityContributionApportionmentState Compensation Insurance FundHartford InsuranceRoyal & SunAllianceArrowood Indemnity
References
Case No. ADJ10341509, ADJ9817511, ADJ9818066, ADJ8825215
Regular
Jul 19, 2018

CARRIE SPELLINGS vs. PACIFIC PULMONARY SERVICES, SOMPO AMERICA, BROADSPIRE, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous decision and remanded the case for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to address all submitted issues and provide sufficient factual and legal reasoning for their findings. Specifically, the ALJ did not adequately detail the evidence supporting their determination of injury and disability during Hartford's coverage or explain why the applicant's testimony was not credible. The WCAB requires the ALJ to first determine the number, dates, and body parts of any injuries sustained by the applicant before addressing issues like reimbursement and the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Pulmonary ServicesSompo AmericaTwin City Fire InsuranceHartford Insurance CompanyFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCumulative Trauma InjuryStatute of Limitations
References
Case No. ADJ8214863
Regular
Sep 23, 2014

JOEL PRECIADO vs. DECORATOR'S PLACE CORPORATION, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants Hartford and Southern Insurance Company seek reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of a cumulative trauma injury with a date range. Hartford argues the date of injury should be no later than April 10, 2010, based on applicant's testimony and AME report. Southern contends there are two separate cumulative injuries, with dates of April 2010 and January 8, 2012, requiring separate liability determinations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior findings, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for a single date of injury determination and potential apportionment.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJOEL PRECIADODECORATOR'S PLACE CORPORATIONTHE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANYSOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8214863OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONCUMULATIVE TRAUMA INJURYLABOR CODE SECTION 5412
References
Showing 1-10 of 447 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