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. OAK 0334529
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

IONE MCKAY vs. HOLIDAY INN, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal in the case of Ione McKay v. Holiday Inn and Zurich Insurance Company. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report as the basis for their decision. Any perceived clerical error in the judge's report was noted but did not alter the outcome of denying removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ reportdenial of removalclerical erroradministrative law judgeHoliday InnZurich Insurance CompanyIone McKayOAK 0334529
References
Case No. ADJ7702057
Regular
Sep 11, 2012

Salome Ramirez vs. Holiday Inn Express, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, Benchmark Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Salome Ramirez's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that she failed to prove her alleged injuries arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The ALJ found inconsistencies in Ramirez's testimony regarding the date of injury and the circumstances of the incident, particularly concerning elevator functionality and the necessity of using stairs for linen transport. Furthermore, the ALJ deemed the defense witnesses credible and found the employer's incident report admissible, concluding that Ramirez did not meet her burden of proof.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ApplicantHoliday Inn ExpressIllinois Midwest Insurance AgencyBenchmark Insurance CompanyADJ7702057Housekeeper
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ11167540
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

CHARLES SENIFF vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Federal Express's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of jurisdiction. Federal Express argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not work in California after 2006. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found California jurisdiction supported by Labor Code section 3600.5(a) and precedent case law, deeming these sufficient grounds despite the defendant's jurisdictional challenge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFederal Express CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ11167540Santa Ana District OfficeAmended Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgejurisdictionLabor Code section 3600.5(a)Alaska Packers Asso. v. Industrial Acci. Com.
References
Case No. ADJ4449218
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

LUIS ALVARADO vs. STAFFING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here is a summary of the case in a maximum of four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which found jurisdiction over a dispute between an injured worker's applicant and defendant Staffing Services, Inc. The ALJ correctly determined that there was no express agreement between Staffing Services and the lien claimant, Beverly Hills Pharmacy, fixing payment amounts, thus Labor Code section 5304 did not divest the Board of jurisdiction. The Board also found that removal was not appropriate for this final determination. Procedural arguments regarding a denied continuance due to the defense attorney's illness were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalLien ClaimantExpress AgreementLabor Code Section 5304JurisdictionStaffing Services Inc.State Compensation Insurance FundBeverly Hills Pharmacy
References
Case No. ADJ287866 LAO 0813289 ADJ7596806
Regular
Apr 30, 2012

CHESTER JACKSON vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Chester Jackson against Federal Express. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB affirmed the original decision but amended it to include penalties and interest owed to Dr. Friedman, pursuant to Labor Code section 4622(b), for specific dates of service. The exact amounts are to be adjusted by the parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended DecisionPenaltiesInterestLC4622(b)Dates of ServiceFederal ExpressChester JacksonFriedman Psychiatric Med
References
Case No. ADJ741218 (OAK 0217902)
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

ROBIN JOHNSON vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS, BROADSPIRE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Robin Johnson, in a workers' compensation matter against Federal Express and its adjusters. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because reconsideration is only appropriate for final orders that determine substantive rights, not interlocutory or procedural decisions. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying such action. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition and denied removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityInterlocutory OrdersProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ12138014 ADJ10965293
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

DONALD WRIGHT vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The WCAB denied Defendant Federal Express Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that applicant Donald Wright is entitled to a separate Agreed Medical Evaluator or Qualified Medical Examiner for his cumulative trauma (CT) claim. Defendant argued applicant waived this right by not filing a claim form for the CT claim, citing *Navarro v. City of Montebello*. However, the Board found that while the initial finding of injury AOE/COE was a threshold issue, the entitlement to a separate QME for the CT claim was interlocutory. As Defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, removal was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDONALD WRIGHTFEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATIONADJ12138014ADJ10965293Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJcumulative trauma (CT) claimpanel qualified medical evaluator (QME)
References
Case No. ADJ11101523
Regular
Aug 13, 2018

SUBHPREET GILL vs. JARNAIL SINGH, KING STAR EXPRESS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant King Star Express's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that denied the joinder of Total Quality Logistics LLC and Wish Farms LLC. The Board determined that if these entities are indeed joint employers, they are necessary parties for a full adjudication of the case. The matter was returned to the trial level for the Workers' Compensation Judge to address the joinder of these parties. This decision hinges on the degree of control Total Quality Logistics and Wish Farms exercised over the applicant's work, which is crucial for establishing an employment relationship.

Petition for RemovalJoinder of PartiesJoint EmployersIndependent ContractorSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerDirection and ControlWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5307.5
References
Case No. ADJ9843286
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

MARQUIS MAYFIELD vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, PSI, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

In *Mayfield v. Federal Express Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior order. The WCAB rescinded an August 2, 2017 order that had commuted future weekly payments to a lump sum of $6,000. This rescission was based on the defendant's petition for reconsideration, supported by the applicant's counsel, who also requested rescission. The primary reason for rescission was that the full settlement award had already been advanced to the applicant, leaving no remaining funds for commutation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCommutation OrderRescindedFederal Express CorporationSedgwick CMSPermanent Disability AwardEconomic HardshipStatement of Non-OppositionAdministrative Law Judge
References
Showing 1-10 of 280 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