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. ADJ1052618
Regular
May 24, 2012

HAYDEE MUNOZ vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Haydee Munoz. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition, in this instance, sought reconsideration of a pre-trial order regarding evidence, which is considered a non-final interlocutory order. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the request for removal were denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightLiabilityRemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code SectionsNon-FinalProcedural Decisions
References
Case No. ADJ2324956 (RIV 0062498)
Regular
Mar 18, 2013

HAYDEE MURILLO vs. ALVAREZ FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed Haydee Murillo's petition for reconsideration in the case against Alvarez Farm Labor Contractor and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasons stated in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJAlvarez Farm Labor ContractorState Compensation Insurance FundHaydee MurilloADJ2324956
References
Case No. ADJ2984143 (LBO 0340645) MF ADJ3946341 (LBO 0340644) ADJ896223 (LBO 0340643)
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

FERNANDO GUZMAN vs. ACU-AIR CARGO, LLC, PARSONS TRANSPORTATION, LLC, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's decision that barred the applicant's claims due to the employer's bankruptcy. The Board clarified that a bankruptcy discharge injunction does not prevent a WCAB proceeding if the goal is to collect from a collateral source like the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF), not the discharged bankrupt employer personally. Relying on *In Re Munoz*, the Board held that a WCAB proceeding can continue to establish an award against the bankrupt employer, which is a necessary precursor for the UEF to pay. Therefore, the applicant may proceed with their claims before the WCAB, provided they stipulate they are not seeking personal recovery from the bankrupt employer.

UEFbankruptcy discharge injunctioncollateral sourcesubstantial shareholderLabor Code section 3717.1uninsured employerproof of claimautomatic staynondischargeable debtMunoz
References
Case No. ADJ7238687
Regular
Apr 18, 2013

Fernando Munoz vs. Kings Hawaiian Bakery West Inc., Zurich American Insurance Co., Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the original findings that Fernando Munoz sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, low back, and left shoulder. The employer argued Munoz failed to prove they had notice of the injury before his termination. However, the WCAB found Dr. Feiwell's medical opinions constituted substantial evidence supporting the industrial nature of the injuries. The WCAB also gave significant weight to the trial judge's credibility findings regarding Munoz's testimony that he reported the injury to his supervisor.

AOE/COELabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)substantial evidencemedical probability
References
Case No. ADJ10218466
Regular
Apr 27, 2017

DEMETRIO GARCIA MUNOZ vs. EL CENTRO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in the case of *Munoz v. El Centro Regional Medical Center*. Removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur and reconsideration will be an inadequate remedy. The WCAB found the defendant did not meet this high standard based on the Administrative Law Judge's analysis. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the matter will proceed in the normal course.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDenying RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeADJ10218466El Centro Regional Medical CenterTristar Risk Management
References
Case No. POM 0264727POM 0267166
Regular
Aug 19, 2008

CELIA MUNOZ vs. THE TOWN CLUB, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY/GAB ROBINS

Here's a summary of the provided case excerpts: In *Fiducia*, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found applicant sustained industrial injuries but had failed to attend medical exams and hearings, leading to dismissal for good cause. The Board vacated the prior dismissal and remanded for further development of the record, acknowledging that the applicant's failure to attend examinations and hearings warranted dismissal. However, due to lack of current medical evidence, the Board vacated the dismissal and returned the case to the trial level to allow applicant to attend examinations and hearings. In *Munoz*, the defendant sought reconsideration of an order vacating submission and returning the case to the trial calendar to further develop the evidentiary record concerning a lien claimant's charges. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order and denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The Board emphasized that interlocutory orders to further develop evidence are not subject to reconsideration.

WCABindustrial injurypsycheTMJnasal traumateethblood pressuredismissalgood causetemporary disability
References
Case No. ADJ7086160
Regular
Oct 09, 2020

JUAN MUNOZ TOVAR (deceased) vs. SUPER ONE FOOD STORE, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL OMAHA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of deceased worker Juan Munoz Tovar. The WCAB rescinded the previous decision from August 7, 2020. The case is now remanded back to the Workers' Compensation Judge for further proceedings and a new decision. This order is not a final determination on the merits of the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportrescind decisionreturn to trial levelfurther proceedingsdecision after reconsiderationapplicant deceasedemployerinsurance carrier
References
Case No. ADJ3671981 (VNO 0503368) ADJ2645149 (BAK 0148647)
Regular
Oct 09, 2014

ROSA MUNOZ, ROSA WILLIAMS MUNOZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COURT-CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the original decision. The Defendant's claim that the arousal disorder was not supported by medical evidence was rejected because the parties had previously stipulated to this injury AOE/COE. The Board found no good cause to set aside the stipulation, especially since no objections were raised at trial or after the Minutes of Hearing were served. The Board also noted that the Defendant's reply brief was not considered as it was submitted without permission.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportStipulationAOE/COEArousal DisorderLabor Code § 57028 CCR 10497County of Sacramento vs. WCAB (Weatherall)correctional officer
References
Case No. ADJ4615548 (VNO 0497034) ADJ1524834 (VNO 0497035)
Regular
Feb 14, 2011

JULIA DE CASAS vs. GRIMWAY ENTERPRISES

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration after their $\$8,134.77$ medical treatment lien was disallowed by the WCJ for untimeliness. The lien was filed on February 8, 2010, for treatment rendered between June 2004 and February 2005, well after the August 3, 2006, Order Approving Compromise and Release and exceeding statutory filing deadlines. The claimant argued the lien was enforceable once the defendant was aware of the services and that the defendant had "unclean hands" for failing to disclose pending charges. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the lien claim was time-barred per Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGrimway EnterprisesTristar Risk ManagementEMSI Physicians NetworkTomas RiosAlpha Billing & CollectionsRicardo MuñozPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantRulings Findings of Fact & Order
References
Case No. ADJ7166686
Regular
Jul 24, 2012

RICHARD ANDERSON vs. JAGUAR/LANDROVER OF VENTURA, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who suffered a stroke and subsequent 100% permanent disability following surgery for an industrial shoulder injury. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing for apportionment to pre-existing conditions and challenging the attorney's fee calculation. The Appeals Board affirmed the 100% permanent disability finding, finding no basis for apportionment as the applicant's pre-existing conditions did not cause the disability itself. However, the Board modified the attorney's fee award, requiring commutation using a specific method and a 3% cost of living adjustment, finding the previously assumed 4.6% to be speculative.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRichard AndersonJaguar/Landrover of VenturaCompwest Insurance CompanyADJ7166686ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBrain InjuryNeurological System
References
Showing 1-10 of 46 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