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. ADJ7850439
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

Edgar Tabo vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a police officer, injured himself in an off-duty bicycle crash. The Board denied compensation because the applicant failed to establish that his subjective belief of needing to train for an optional bicycle patrol course was objectively reasonable. His off-duty recreational activity did not meet the requirements for an exception to the exclusion for such injuries under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Therefore, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEdgar TaboCity and County of San Francisco Police DepartmentPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ7850439Oakland District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. SFO 0499272
Regular
Jul 07, 2008

Helen Miller vs. Green Gulch Farm and Zen Center, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that Helen Miller was an employee of Green Gulch Farm and Zen Center and sustained an industrial injury to her left ankle. The Board found Miller was not a volunteer due to the extensive benefits received and the employer's control, and her jogging injury during a lunch break was a reasonable expectancy of employment, not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Therefore, her injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardHelen MillerGreen Gulch Farm and Zen CenterEverest National InsuranceGallagher BassettSFO 0499272Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3352(i)Employee definition
References
Case No. ADJ8413347
Regular
Sep 23, 2013

GARY BRODIE vs. CARMAX, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a finding that he treated outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) without justification. The applicant argued he was denied access to MPN treatment due to the defendant's non-compliance and sought to introduce new evidence of physician licensing issues. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found no legal basis for the applicant's claims. The Board also strongly admonished the applicant's attorney for improperly attaching exhibits not in the trial record and raising issues not previously litigated, noting potential sanctions.

Medical Provider NetworkMPN compliancestatutory requirementsregulatory requirementsphysician identificationpractice groupslicensing requirementsmedical malpractice judgmentdisciplinary actionnewly discovered evidence
References
Case No. ADJ9351964, ADJ9351965
Significant
Dec 22, 2015

Rogelio Cornejo vs. YOUNIQUE CAFÉ, INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board held that a copy service acting as an agent or independent contractor for an attorney is exempt from the registration and bonding requirements of the Business and Professions Code, rescinding the WCJ's decision to disallow their lien.

Business and Professions Code Section 22451Professional photocopierLien claimantIndependent contractorAgent of attorneyMedical-legal expensesRegistration requirementsBonding requirementsEn banc decisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ8674944
Regular
Sep 28, 2015

CECILIA ROSALES vs. KING TACO RESTAURANT, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim by Western Imaging Services (WIS) for photocopying services rendered to applicant's attorney. The original decision disallowed the lien, finding WIS was not an independent contractor exempt from registration and bonding requirements under Business and Professions Code § 22451(b). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that WIS *was* an independent contractor of the attorney based on submitted evidence and the plain language of the statute. Therefore, WIS is exempt from registration, and its lien is allowed, with penalties deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationIndependent ContractorBusiness and Professions CodeRegistration RequirementsBonding RequirementState BarProfessional Photocopying
References
Case No. ADJ7787891
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

JORGE CERVANTES vs. JBM SPORT TRUCK AND ACCESSORIES, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary for a lawyer, in a maximum of four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior decision that disallowed a lien claimant's invoice for photocopying services. The Board found that the lien claimant, California Imaging Solutions, acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. This status exempted them from Business and Professions Code registration and bonding requirements. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level to determine the reasonable fee for the lien claimant's services.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent ContractorBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451Registration RequirementBonding RequirementProfessional PhotocopierState Bar MemberApplicant's Attorney
References
Case No. ADJ9093248
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

ARISTEA CANTORAN vs. NEW HORIZON LODGE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Western Imaging Services (WIS), seeking payment for photocopying services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed a prior decision that disallowed WIS's lien. The WCAB found that WIS was exempt from registration and bonding requirements under Business and Professions Code § 22451(b) because it acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level for a new decision on the reasonable amount of WIS's fee.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantWestern Imaging ServicesBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451Independent ContractorProfessional PhotocopierRegistration RequirementsBonding RequirementsMember of the State BarApplicant's Attorney
References
Case No. ADJ8313132
Regular
2015-05-00

Ana Garcia vs. Exemplar Enterprise, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

This case involves a lien claim by Preferred Scan, Inc. (PSI) for photocopying services provided to the applicant's attorney. The initial ruling disallowed PSI's lien, finding it failed to meet registration and bonding requirements for professional photocopiers under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed this decision, holding that PSI was exempt as an independent contractor of a member of the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 22451(b). The WCAB found sufficient evidence that PSI acted as an agent or independent contractor for the attorney, thus making registration and bonding unnecessary. The case was returned to the trial level to determine the amount due on PSI's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent ContractorBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451Registration RequirementsBonding RequirementsMember of the State Bar
References
Case No. ADJ9175182
Regular
Nov 20, 2015

MILIS BADAL vs. PAPIOLA AGHASSI, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Milis Badal's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that Badal was a volunteer, not an employee, when injured. The majority panel deferred to the judge's credibility determination of defense witnesses over Badal's testimony. However, one commissioner dissented, arguing the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357 was not rebutted, given Badal's prior paid work and the nature of the task. The dissent contended that the defense failed to prove Badal was not an employee or that an implied contract for hire was absent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantVolunteerEmployment StatusIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderCredibility DeterminationWitness Testimony
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,670 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