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. 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
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05574 [242 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order dismissing Luis Murillo's Labor Law claims (§ 241 (6) and § 200) and common-law negligence claim against Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, and related entities. The court held that Murillo, a worker responsible for debris removal, could not recover for injuries caused by the very condition he was tasked with remedying. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' common-law and contractual indemnity claims against third-party defendant William Erath & Son, Inc., concluding that Erath had no contractual duty to perform debris removal, and thus Murillo's accident did not arise out of Erath's work. The decision emphasizes the principle that responsibility for cleanup tasks dictates liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkDebris RemovalContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party Claim
References
6
Case No. ADJ13901094
Regular
Jun 19, 2025

MONA MURILLO vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Mona Murillo filed a Petition for Reconsideration on March 20, 2025, challenging a December 13, 2024, Findings of Fact by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had found industrial injury to Murillo's facial bones and left knee, sustained while working for the California Department of Corrections, but also determined she could not collect permanent disability benefits while incarcerated. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that Murillo's Petition was both untimely, having been filed after the January 7, 2025, deadline, and unverified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactInmate LaborerIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability BenefitsIncarcerationUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5909
References
7
Case No. ADJ1046022
Regular
Apr 13, 2010

FRANCISCO MURILLO vs. BKC CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Francisco Murillo's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ) in reaching this decision. The order formally denies Murillo's request for the Board to revisit the case. The decision was filed on April 13, 2010.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdeny reconsiderationADJ1046022FRE 0243302BKC ConstructionState Compensation Insurance FundFrancisco Murilloadministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ7908284
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

MARIA MURILLO vs. FEDEX SMART POST, PROTECTIVE INSURANCE

This case involves Maria Murillo's workers' compensation claim against FedEx Smart Post. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Murillo's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The WCAB emphasized that timely *receipt* by the Board, not just mailing, is required to meet jurisdictional filing deadlines. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDISMISSEDUNTimelyLABOR CODECALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONSJURISDICTIONALWCJ DECISIONSERVICE BY MAILPROOF OF MAILING
References
4
Case No. ADJ6788617
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

JOSE MURILLO vs. ROYAL PAPER BOX COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant appealed the finding of permanent total disability for applicant Jose Murillo, arguing the vocational evidence was unsubstantial and improperly considered non-industrial factors. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, finding the vocational expert's report constituted substantial evidence. The report concluded Murillo's multiple industrial impairments rendered him unable to participate in vocational rehabilitation or compete in the labor market. The Board specifically found the defendant's apportionment arguments unpersuasive.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earning CapacityAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentContra Costa County v. DahlVocational RehabilitationResidual Functional Capacity
References
1
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
5
Case No. ADJ7535016, ADJ7536297, ADJ8099855
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

DAVID MURILLO-RAMOS vs. NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal is based on two procedural defects: the petition was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902, and there was no proof of proper service under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10565(d). The Board cites prior case law supporting dismissal for these types of violations. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Murillo-Ramos against National Retail Transportation and Travelers Insurance is formally rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code section 5902Proof of ServiceCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10565(d)WCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ1629506
Regular
Sep 18, 2014

MARIA MURILLO vs. HACIENDA HOTEL, US FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRUM & FORSTER, ELENA KONSTAT, PHD

This case involves a lien claim by Dr. Elena Konstat for $35,443.85 for psychological treatment provided to applicant Maria Murillo. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the WCJ's order disallowing the lien. The WCJ found that the psychological treatment was not causally related to the applicant's industrial orthopedic injury, especially since a prior award found no psyche injury and the issue of medical-legal charges was not raised at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMedical-legal chargesLien ClaimantFindings and OrderPermanent disabilityOrthopedic injuriesPsyche injurySuicidal tendenciesAdmissible evidence
References
3
Case No. FRE 214256
Regular
Aug 17, 2007

DARLENE MURILLO vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

This case concerns whether the 1997 or 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule applies to an applicant's foot injuries sustained while employed by the County of Fresno. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's decision to apply the 1997 Schedule, arguing a pre-2005 medical report did not establish permanent disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the case for a new decision using the 2005 Schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of FresnoDarlene MurilloFindings and AwardPermanent Disability1997 Schedule2005 ScheduleLabor Code section 4660(d)Qualified Medical EvaluatorMichael A. DiGiacomo
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 23 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