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. ADJ7098464
Regular
Apr 02, 2014

## CASEY PENDLEBURY, vs. L. A. DELI DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by an applicant concerning a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The petitioner has officially withdrawn their petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition. This dismissal is based solely on the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardL. A. Deli DistributorsLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ7098464Santa Ana District OfficeMarguerie SweeneyFrank M. Brass
References
Case No. ADJ4120534 (POM 0297037), ADJ2862914 (POM 0298490), ADJ4622170 (POM 0298730), ADJ1753517 (POM 0058454), ADJ3646011 (POM 0249199)
Regular
Dec 19, 2013

SANDRA GREGORY vs. COVINGTON CROWE, LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sandra Gregory's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation, finding no grounds for reconsideration. To the extent the petition was deemed a request for removal, that request was also denied. The case involves multiple claim numbers and parties, including Covington Crowe, LLP and State Compensation Insurance Fund.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDismissedDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationADJ4120534ADJ2862914ADJ4622170
References
Case No. ADJ9116799
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

JOHN FLOYD vs. CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY (BHHC) for FLOYD, SKEREN & KELLY, LLP et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board only grants it when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration would be inadequate. In this instance, the Board found no persuasive evidence of such prejudice or harm, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for denial. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judgeextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
References
Case No. ADJ8276917
Regular
Jun 03, 2014

MARIO GONZALEZ vs. WEST PICO FOODS, INC., and TOWER SELECT INSURANCE, administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that Mario Gonzalez sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, rejecting the employer's post-termination defense. The Board also imposed a $950 sanction against the applicant's attorneys, Lawrence Y. Kao, Esq. and Pearlman, Borska & Wax, LLP, for misrepresenting facts and the record in their petition. The attorneys' responses failed to demonstrate good cause to avoid sanctions, as they primarily argued the merits of the injury claim rather than addressing the issues raised by the sanctions notice. The employer's insurance administrator, York Insurance Services Group, Inc., was not held responsible for the attorneys' conduct.

AOE/COEpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)petition for reconsiderationNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgefindings and ordersanctionsPearlman Borska & Wax
References
Case No. ADJ7288448, ADJ7345282
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

DERVIS ESPINAL vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES/BBSI

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initiated sanctions against attorneys Roy J. Park and Black and Rose LLP, jointly and severally, for $500.00. This action was taken for failure to demonstrate good cause following a notice of intention to impose sanctions. No timely objection was filed by the attorneys. The WCAB accepted the payment of $500.00 received from Black and Rose LLP as full satisfaction of the imposed sanctions.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDremovalsanctionsLabor Code section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561jointly and severallygood causetimely objectionDecision After RemovalGeneral Fund
References
Case No. VNO 475856, VNO 447039, VNO 447045, VNO 447094, VNO 447095, VNO 448064, VNO 461057
Regular
Jan 17, 2008

ORALIA MONGE vs. LATIN AMERICAN CIVIC ASSOCIATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision. After review, the WCAB affirmed the original findings and orders served on September 5, 2007, in multiple cases involving applicant Oralia Monge and defendants Latin American Civic Association and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The decision was finalized and served on January 17, 2008.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionAffirmationCase NumbersApplicantDefendantsState Compensation Insurance FundBradford & Barthel LLPFloyd Skren & Kelly LLP
References
Case No. ADJ1925946 (VNO 0473346)
Regular
Feb 02, 2012

ELIZABETH GONIA vs. ROBIN, CARMACK & GONIA LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed an award for housekeeping services, finding the applicant failed to properly object to the utilization review denial for services requested after January 29, 2009. For services prior to that date, the Board found the applicant did not present sufficient medical evidence demonstrating the housekeeping was "medically necessary and reasonable" to treat her industrial injury. The applicant sustained multiple injuries in 1996, resulting in 100% permanent disability, and sought reimbursement for increased housekeeping due to her condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElizabeth GoniaRobin Carmack & Gonia LLPState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and AwardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentHousekeeping ServicesUtilization Review
References
Case No. ADJ7104281
Regular
Aug 27, 2012

LUIS GUERRERO OCHOA vs. EPLICA CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed more than 25 days after the Order of June 11, 2012, violating the 20-day statutory deadline plus 5 days for mailing. Therefore, the petition was untimely. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. The petition is dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelyadministrative law judgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013lien claimantdismissaldenied on the merits
References
Case No. ADJ4535281 STK 0206039
Regular
Oct 22, 2014

TONI MATTICE vs. NAMM CALIFORNIA-AVETA HEALTH, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant regarding a prior decision. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and an initial review indicating the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB seeks to achieve a complete understanding of the record for a just decision. All future filings in this case must be submitted in writing to the Office of the Commissioners.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardNAMM California-Aveta HealthZurich Insurance CompanyAugust 12014Statutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
Case No. ADJ8069933
Regular
Sep 08, 2014

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ vs. S & S HARDWOOD FLOOR SUPPLY, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP, INC., AMGUARD INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Francisco Hernandez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, but rather from interlocutory procedural decisions. The Board also denied his Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This decision upholds the established procedural rules for appeals in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightLiabilityLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge
References
Showing 1-10 of 66 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