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. ADJ1306195 [SRO0139212] ADJ437348 [SRO0141864]
Regular
Sep 10, 2008

MARIA BARRAGAN vs. KORBEL WINERY, CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The petition for reconsideration is dismissed as the order to attend a medical evaluation is not final. Removal is denied due to lack of showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesWCJ Pre-trial OrdersMedical EvaluationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
9
Case No. ADJ6877517
Regular
Feb 10, 2017

LILIANA PEREZ vs. E. & J. GALLOW WINERY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant winery's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the applicant's prior petition to reopen initiated all subsequent proceedings, including their own petition to terminate benefits. However, the Board found this contention meritless as the applicant's petition sought only new and further disability, not termination, and was withdrawn before trial. Labor Code section 4607, regarding unsuccessful proceedings to terminate awards, thus applied only to the defendant's actions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityTerminate Medical AwardLabor Code 4607Unsuccessful TerminationInitiated ProceedingsWithdrawal of PetitionWCJ ReportAppeals Board Rule 10848
References
0
Case No. ADJ8235335 ADJ10301846
Regular
Dec 23, 2019

JACK KESSLER vs. E&J GALLO WINERY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by E&J Gallo Winery that was dismissed as untimely. The petition was filed on October 28, 2019, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline for filing after the WCJ's September 30, 2019 decision. The Appeals Board emphasized that filing proof of mailing within the deadline is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board. Furthermore, the Board noted that the same issues raised had been previously addressed, warranting potential sanctions for frivolous conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitMailing vs. FilingWCJ DecisionSanctionsFrivolous ConductReconsideration DenialAdministrative Law Judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ10301846 ADJ8235335
Regular
Feb 07, 2019

Jack Kessler vs. E. \u0026 J. Gallo Winery

Defendant E. & J. Gallo Winery sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that found applicant Jack Kessler sustained a compensable psychiatric injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that industrial factors were the predominant cause of the applicant's psyche injury. The defendant argued the applicant failed to meet the "predominant cause" standard for psychiatric injuries and that combining two separate injuries was impermissible. The Board clarified that the issue of injury causation is distinct from the apportionment of permanent disability, and the applicant's medical evidence met the predominant cause standard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityPsyche InjuryPredominant CauseLabor Code section 3208.2Labor Code section 3208.3Cumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryApportionment
References
5
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
Case No. ADJ9924944, ADJ9586539, ADJ9642399
Regular
Dec 18, 2017

FRANCISCO ALVARADO vs. E. &J. GALLO WINERY WORKERS' COMPENSATION, E. &J. GALLO WINERY

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of an order approving a Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement. The defendant claims they discovered a prior, unaddressed injury after executing the C&R but before its approval, and sought to withdraw consent. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding the record insufficient to determine if the defendant had a due process right to present evidence regarding the discovered injury. The matter was remanded for a new hearing to establish the facts surrounding the C&R's execution and submission, and the parties' intentions.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceEmployment Development DepartmentCumulative trauma claimSpecific injuryDate of injuryWithdraw consentDue process rights
References
0
Case No. 00 Civ. 778(RMB)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2002

Swedenburg v. Kelly

Plaintiffs, including out-of-state wineries and New York consumers, filed an action challenging the constitutionality of New York's Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, specifically its ban on the direct shipment of out-of-state wine. They argued the ban violated the Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and First Amendment. Defendants, New York State Liquor Authority officials and various intervenors, contended the ban was a valid exercise of state power under the Twenty-first Amendment, aiming to promote temperance, ensure orderly market conditions, and raise revenue. The Court found that New York's ABC Law, particularly its exceptions favoring in-state wineries, facially discriminated against interstate commerce, thus constituting a per se violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Court rejected the Twenty-first Amendment defense, concluding the exceptions served economic protectionism, and nondiscriminatory alternatives existed to meet the state's legitimate goals. The Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs, denying Defendants' motion, and declared the New York ban on direct shipment of out-of-state wine unconstitutional, scheduling a conference for remedy.

Dormant Commerce ClauseTwenty-first AmendmentAlcoholic Beverage Control LawDirect Wine ShipmentSummary JudgmentEconomic ProtectionismState Liquor AuthorityInterstate CommerceConstitutional LawWine Industry Regulation
References
52
Case No. STK 0188538
Regular
Jul 02, 2008

DAVID DYKES vs. E. & J. GALLO WINERY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition to reopen a prior award due to a change in the law established by the Supreme Court in *Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* This change in law clarified the method for calculating permanent disability indemnity after apportionment, overriding a prior appellate court decision that the Board had relied on. Consequently, the Board rescinded the previous decision, granted the petition to reopen, and remanded the case to recalculate permanent disability indemnity based on the controlling Supreme Court precedent.

WCABPetition to ReopenReconsiderationRes JudicataGood CauseChange of LawLaw of the CaseApportionmentPermanent Disability IndemnityLabor Code Sections 4663
References
16
Case No. ADJ3189130 (STK 0188538)
Regular
Dec 08, 2010

DAVID DYKES vs. E. & J. GALLO WINERY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision that found the applicant sustained a compensable industrial injury to his psyche. The Board found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1) that actual employment events were the predominant cause of his psychiatric injury. Medical evidence submitted by the applicant's own psychologist was deemed insufficient due to lack of clear reasoning and an inability to establish predominant causation. Therefore, the Board amended the findings to reflect that no compensable industrial injury to the psyche was proven.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardE. & J. Gallo WineryDavid Dykesindustrial injurypsyche injurycompensable consequenceLabor Code section 3208.3(b)(1)predominant causesubstantial medical evidenceDr. Robert Schneider
References
4
Case No. ADJ10142412
Regular
Jul 11, 2016

CARLOS GERMAN vs. E&J GALLO WINERY

The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of a Findings and Order finding the applicant's choice of a chiropractic QME appropriate. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the QME specialty selection a non-final discovery order. Removal was denied as the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and medical evidence did not conclusively show an orthopedic surgeon was more appropriate. The Board admonished defense counsel for filing on a non-final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical Specialty DisputeChiropractic PanelOrthopedic Surgery PanelLabor Code Section 4061Medical Director DeterminationTitle 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.5(a)(10)
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 21 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