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. ADJ761271 (SJO 0070447)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

Dorothy Thompson vs. GENERAL MOTORS, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has declared Dorothy Thompson a vexatious litigant. This declaration follows a notice issued on September 7, 2010, to which no response was received. As a result, any future filings by Ms. Thompson in propria persona will be considered "conditionally filed." Such filings will only be deemed properly filed after a judge or the Board determines they do not violate Rule 10782(a).

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPropria PersonaRule 10782(a)Conditionally FiledPermissibly Self-InsuredSedgwick Claims Management ServicesNotice of IntentionPresiding Workers' Compensation Judge
References
Case No. ADJ6687390
Regular
Sep 28, 2015

GABRIELA OCHOA RODRIGUEZ vs. PERSONA HR, TOWER INSURANCE, ACCUPRINT SERVICES

This case involves an applicant injured while employed as a printer for Persona HR and Accuprint Services, Inc. Persona HR sought reconsideration of a finding of dual employment, arguing it was denied due process by the admission of witness testimony without prior notice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that any error in admitting the testimony was harmless as it was not relied upon for the decision. The Board affirmed the finding of dual employment based on contract language and emails, noting that an employee can have joint and several liability for compensation benefits from multiple employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPersona HRTower InsuranceAccuprint ServicesUninsuredpetition for reconsiderationindustrial injurybilateral wristslumbar spineright knees
References
Case No. POM 0231129
Regular
Jun 03, 2008

PEGGY MAYER SPIER vs. BRIDGECREEK RETIREMENT HOME, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees from a workers' compensation settlement. The WCJ initially divided the remaining $10,500 in fees based solely on the length of representation, awarding $9,450 to the applicant for self-representation and $1,050 to the former attorney. The former attorney sought reconsideration, arguing the WCJ improperly ignored statutory factors like responsibility, care, time, and results obtained. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded the case for a new fee determination based on all four statutory criteria.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeesCompromise and ReleasePropria PersonaLien ClaimantAgreed Medical ExaminerThoracic Outlet SyndromeLabor Code Section 4906(d)Rule 10775
References
Case No. ADJ10394099
Regular
Sep 06, 2018

Samuel Ciuriuc vs. YRC WORLDWIDE INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Samuel Ciuriuc's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. Ciuriuc's petition raised issues regarding his ability to return to work and find a new physician within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) following an award of permanent disability and future medical treatment for a spine injury. The Board is returning the matter to the trial level for a status conference to address these issues, and advises Ciuriuc to contact the Information and Assistance Unit and the MPN for help.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalAwardStipulations with Request for AwardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Information and Assistance UnitMedical TreatmentStatus ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Industrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8604093
Regular
May 20, 2014

JOYCE COOPER, Marion Joyce Cooper vs. EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK

This case involves Marion Joyce Cooper's workers' compensation claim against Eisenhower Medical Center for an injury sustained while changing curtains. The applicant claims to have pulled something in her neck, but key witnesses credibly testified that she did not report the injury at the time it allegedly occurred. The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant's testimony less believable than that of the witnesses regarding the injury report. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the judge's findings and extending great weight to the credibility determination.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDGARZA v. WORKMEN'S COMP. APPEALS BD.CREDIBILITYEISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTERSEDGWICK CMSIN PROPRIA PERSONADISMISSAL OF ATTORNEYHOUSEKEEPER
References
Case No. ADJ9828813 ADJ9828571
Regular
Apr 02, 2020

ERIC LIFE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Eric Life's petition to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the applicant failed to properly serve the opposing parties and lacked a proof of service. Even if properly filed, the petition lacked specific factual allegations required to demonstrate bias or an unqualified opinion by the WCJ. The Board also warned the applicant of potential vexatious litigant proceedings for repetitive and unmeritorious filings.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ RecusalLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10510Proof of ServiceCode of Civil Procedure Section 641Vexatious LitigantPropria PersonaUnmeritorious FilingsDismissal Order
References
Case No. ADJ8513866
Regular
Oct 11, 2013

GARY HICKS vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for future medical treatment, including spinal surgery, stemming from a 1996 industrial injury. The defendant employer argued that no reporting doctors addressed causation for the surgery. The Board noted the defendant's violation of rules by submitting unadmitted exhibits. Consequently, the Board amended the award to defer the issue of whether the 1996 injury contributes to the need for surgery, returning the matter for further proceedings to develop the record on causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFuture Medical TreatmentSpinal SurgeryCausationLabor Code section 4062 (b)Substantial EvidencePropria PersonaPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)
References
Case No. ADJ1990332 (OAK 0251897) ADJ332563 (OAK 0262649) ADJ2879880 (OAK 0263586) ADJ4303903 (OAK 0264811)
Regular
Nov 09, 2009

TERRY D. BROWN vs. PORT OF OAKLAND

The Appeals Board declared Terry Brown a vexatious litigant due to repeatedly filing unmeritorious papers attempting to relitigate previously determined issues. A prefiling order was implemented requiring review of his future filings.

Vexatious litigantRemovalAppeals BoardRule 10782Prefiling orderIn propria personaUnmeritorious petitionsConditional filingPresiding WCJGood cause
References
Case No. OAK 0295096
Regular
Sep 14, 2007

DAVID JONES vs. CSAA and ACE/ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order that denied sanctions against defense counsel. The applicant's attorney sought sanctions based on allegations of bad faith tactics in resisting a deposition fee and in subsequent payment negotiations, arguing the defense repeated arguments previously rejected in a similar case. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found no new evidence and maintained that the defense's actions did not rise to the level of bad faith warranting sanctions.

WCABReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code §5813Bad Faith TacticsDeposition FeePeden v. Lockheed MartinLabor Code §5710Attorney's FeesStanding
References
Case No. ADJ2458433, ADJ3638211, ADJ7362994, ADJ9026581
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

ROY NORWOOD vs. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision. The defendant sought to compel the applicant to undergo an evaluation by a previously used Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) and to prevent the issuance of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel for a new injury claim. The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.3(k) does not mandate using the same AME for all future claims and cited a pending en banc decision supporting this interpretation. Furthermore, the Board noted that the prior judge's order regarding the AME did not apply to the new claim where no agreement for that AME existed.

WCABPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical UnitEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code section 4062.3(k)Propria PersonaInconsistent with Labor Code
References
Showing 1-10 of 57 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