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. VNO 0531326
Regular
Jan 28, 2008

MARGARET PORRAS vs. MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES, FEDERATED CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as interlocutory procedural orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of irreparable harm and that the defendant failed to provide sufficient proof to support joinder of a concurrent employer. The defendant may refile for joinder with proper supporting evidence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying RemovalPetition for JoinderConcurrent EmployerCumulative InjuryBilateral WristsIrreparable HarmQualified Medical EvaluatorInterlocutory Order
References
Case No. ADJ2832796 (SAC 0362707) ADJ1414613 (SAC 0362718)
Regular
Mar 15, 2011

DANIEL WALTERS vs. HOLLAND CUSTOM IRON WORKS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employer, Holland Custom Iron Works, Inc., had workers' compensation insurance coverage on August 16, 2006, following a notice of cancellation for non-payment. The Appeals Board affirmed an arbitrator's finding that coverage existed, relying on equitable estoppel and the ambiguity of the cancellation notice. The insurer's contention that coverage was contingent on a "gap premium" payment was rejected as exceeding the arbitrator's authority. The Board's decision clarifies that the payment made by the employer was sufficient to rescind the cancellation.

Gap premiumequitable estoppelworkers' compensation insurance coveragecancellation noticerescissionarbitration rulingpayment ambiguityrelianceambiguous languagemonetary default
References
Case No. ADJ19417386
Regular
Mar 17, 2025

LOURDES AVILA vs. PRIORITY WORKFORCE, MVP PAYROLL FINANCING, LLC, SUNZ INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a WCJ's order to replace a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The defendant argued that their due process rights were violated and that they were entitled to an additional strike due to an initial double strike of a QME. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. They upheld the WCJ's decision, emphasizing that the subsequent strikes by both parties were untimely and the order to obtain a replacement panel did not determine substantive rights.

Removal PetitionPanel StrikesQualified Medical EvaluatorIrreparable AmbiguityDue ProcessMailbox RuleTimelinessLabor Code Section 4062.2(c)Agreed Medical EvaluatorAlvarado v. WCAB
References
Case No. ADJ1286845 (SAC 347550) ADJ2302074 (SAC 322428) ADJ2133073 (SAC 330059)
Regular
Feb 23, 2009

MICHAEL WHITNEY vs. COUNTY OF PLACER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a penalty award against the defendant County of Placer. The Board found that the defendant's initial delay in paying the applicant's attorneys' fees was not unreasonable due to ambiguous handwritten language in the award itself, created by applicant's counsel. Defendant acted reasonably by seeking clarification and promptly paid the fees once the ambiguity was resolved. Therefore, the imposition of a penalty for unreasonable delay was unwarranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of PlacerGregory Bragg and AssociatesMichael WhitneyAmended Findings and Awardunreasonable delayattorneys' feesstipulated awardpenaltyLabor Code section 5814
References
Case No. ADJ7111686
Regular
Apr 14, 2010

DANIEL AVENDANO, JR. vs. RAYDON, INC., ENDURANCE INS. CO., FIRSTCOMP.

The defendant sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release agreement, arguing the WCJ erred by not allowing a credit for permanent disability advances due to mutual mistake. The agreement settled the applicant's industrial injuries for $\$12,797.50$. However, the Compromise and Release form contained an ambiguous clause regarding permanent disability advances, with blanks left unfilled by the defendant. Because the defendant drafted the agreement and the applicant was unrepresented, any ambiguity is construed against the defendant. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied, and the defendant is not entitled to a credit for permanent disability advances.

Permanent disability advancesCompromise and ReleaseMutual mistake of factWCABLabor Code section 5003AmbiguityUnrepresented applicantContract interpretationCreditIndustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ9652696
Regular
Jul 11, 2016

JAVIER GARCIA vs. YIRAE FASHION, INC., EMPLOYERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal due to a May 24, 2016 Minute Order from the WCJ. The order's ambiguity regarding trial issues of "reopening the record" or "clarification" would cause the applicant irreparable harm. The Board found the WCJ's order lacked clarity on issues, stipulations, and admitted evidence, violating the duty to create a complete and comprehensible record. Consequently, the Minute Order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level to properly clarify issues and establish the record.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJMinute OrderReopen RecordClarification of RecordSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmQualified Medical ExaminationPQME
References
Case No. ADJ7253570
Regular
May 20, 2015

MICHELLE FELDHAKE vs. HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Michelle Feldhake, and defendants Hollywood Video and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants petitioned for removal of an order that closed discovery and set the case for trial, arguing it would cause irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining vocational evidence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the case to the trial level due to ambiguity regarding the timing of the applicant's vocational expert's report. This action allows defendants to potentially obtain and present their own vocational evidence.

Petition for RemovalDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational ExpertClosing DiscoveryDue ProcessIrreparable HarmVocational EvidenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings Award and OrderHome Healthcare
References
Case No. SFO 0492030
Regular
Jul 05, 2007

PATRICIA MIRANDA vs. EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal filed by Equity Office Properties Trust. The defendant sought to rescind an order continuing the case and allowing applicant discovery, arguing irreparable harm from further costs and delays. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for the continuance to obtain a qualified medical evaluator report.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceContinuanceDiscoveryIrreparable HarmWCAB Rule 10416WCJ Report and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ519600
Regular
Jan 04, 2010

TERESA MARCELO vs. PACIFIC COMMUNICATION CENTER, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The defendant sought removal of orders setting a mandatory settlement conference and denying a functional capacity evaluation, alleging irreparable harm from procedural errors. However, the Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board adopted the WCJ's report concluding reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedFunctional Capacity EvaluationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryReconsiderationAppeals BoardCase Numbers
References
Case No. ADJ3134104 (MON 0361046)
Regular
May 01, 2012

NARCISO ESTRADA vs. GOLD STAR JEWELRY INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, which sought to change a scheduled mandatory settlement conference (MSC) to a trial. The Board held that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, neither of which was demonstrated. The applicant's contention that a brief delay for an MSC would cause irreparable harm was rejected. Therefore, the petition was denied as the applicant did not meet the stringent standards for removal.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJOrder Rescinding and Vacating OrderMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)substantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationexpeditiouslyextraordinary remedy
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,957 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