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. 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. 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. ADJ9625407
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

KEITH FIELD vs. CITY OF PINOLE

This case involves a firefighter who sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome after retirement. The Appeals Board reversed the trial judge, holding that Labor Code section 4458.5 applies, entitling the applicant to permanent disability benefits calculated at the maximum indemnity rate. This applies regardless of the applicant's actual earnings or the fact that carpal tunnel syndrome is not a specifically enumerated presumptive injury. The case is remanded for determination of the precise date of injury to calculate the benefit rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith FieldCity of PinolePermissibly Self-InsuredMunicipal Pooling AuthorityADJ9625407Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryfirefighterbilateral upper extremities
References
Case No. ADJ613558 (LBO 0358811)
Regular
Nov 04, 2011

IRMA LARA vs. JAY AND ELLEN KAUFMAN, STATE FARM INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding payment for interpreter services. The Board found that the lien claimant waived certain claims by failing to serve the petition on the applicant and her attorney, and by not explicitly claiming fees under Labor Code section 5710(b)(5). Regarding a contested payment, the Board noted evidence of a payment that should satisfy the outstanding amount, and denied sanctions for alleged late payment, as the lien claimant did not sufficiently prove the defendant failed to contest liability within the prescribed timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStipulations and AwardInterpreter ServicesLabor Code Section 5811(b)No-Show FeesDeposition PreparationWCJ Report and RecommendationProof of Service
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. ADJ2544321 (VNO 0546971)
Regular
Jan 04, 2010

PEDRO SERRATO vs. B & B DOORS & WINDOWS, INC., PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY C/O AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed 44 days after the deadline. The Board, however, corrected a clerical error in the original Findings and Award. The Judge had awarded $12,425.48 to a lien claimant, but the corrected award reflects the statutory limit of 24 chiropractic visits, along with physical therapy and acupuncture, totaling $3,740.61 based on expert testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPedro SerratoB & B Doors & WindowsPraetorian Insurance CompanyPacific Ortho & RehabilitationFindings and Awardclerical errorpetition for reconsiderationuntimelyLabor Code section 5903
References
Case No. ADJ7181805
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.

This case involves a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failing to pay the required lien activation fee before a scheduled lien conference. The claimant argued that defense counsel informed them the conference was scheduled in error, but the Board found this was not a valid reason to avoid the fee. The Board affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that only the Board, not private parties, can cancel a conference. The claimant was also admonished for failing to properly notify the Board of changes in representation.

Lien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimLien ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDeath BenefitsOff CalendarCal. Code Regs tit. 8 § 10240(a)Lab. Code § 4903.06(a)
References
Case No. ADJ9539560
Regular
May 14, 2015

OSCAR MELENDEZ vs. B&D UPHOLSTERY, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought to invalidate the applicant's requested QME panel. The defendant argued that the applicant's request was invalid because it was not served on their attorney. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding that while service on the attorney was required, the defendant's own QME request contained material defects, including misidentifying the treating physician's specialty and the reason for the request. Therefore, the WCJ's finding of the applicant's panel's validity did not cause irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME PanelLabor Code section 4060Compensability examWCAB Rule 10510(b)Service on attorneyRule 31.1(b)Specialty disputeMaterial defects
References
Case No. ADJ17425906, ADJ17425907
Regular
Sep 19, 2025

JOSE PEREZ vs. LA GONDOLA RESTAURANT, PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by Omaha National Underwriters, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior order regarding interpreter fees for a workers' compensation applicant. The Board is reviewing the WCJ's decision concerning whether interpreter services for deposition preparation and a compromise and release were reasonably necessary and billed appropriately under relevant regulations. The Board specifically noted that the interpreter's certification and the establishment of a market rate for services require further examination. A final decision will be issued after this comprehensive review.

AD Rule 9795.3(b)(2)AD Rule 9795.3(7)(b)(1)cost petitionerLRA InterpretersInc.market rateinterpreter certificationdeposition preparationCompromise and ReleaseC&R
References
Case No. ADJ9074637
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

ANA RAMOS vs. TRI-STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES/ DIAMOND STAFFING; LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, in liquidation, administered by CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address. Additionally, the lien claimant violated WCAB rules by including impermissible attachments to their petition. One attachment documented prohibited ex parte communications with the judge. The lien claimant was admonished to follow Appeals Board rules to avoid potential sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationEx Parte CommunicationLien ClaimantWCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10324(c)SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
Showing 1-10 of 802 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