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. 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. 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. 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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ10029050
Regular
Mar 11, 2016

MARIBEL SANCHEZ vs. GRAPEVINE CATERING, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Board dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, as only final orders are subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a). The WCJ's order concerning the invalidity of a QME panel and the issuance of a new one was deemed an interlocutory discovery matter, not a final decision. Even if considered a petition for removal, the Board would have denied it on the merits because the Medical Unit misinterpreted QME Regulation 30(d)(1) by limiting QME panel requests to defendants, which conflicts with Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2. The Board expressed no opinion on the appropriateness of the pain management specialty, noting the Defendant could dispute it separately.

QME panelMedical Unitpain managementorthopedicsPetition for Reconsiderationfinal orderLabor Code section 5900Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.removalLabor Code section 5310
References
Case No. ADJ4078103 (GOL 0098402)
Regular
Dec 28, 2009

JOSEPHINE STOFFEL vs. ALBERTSONS, INC.; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered By SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to insufficient reasoning and evidence in the original findings. The case is returned for further proceedings and a new decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationPanel QMEDefense QMELabor Code 4067Labor Code 4062.2Labor Code 4062SB 899Labor Code 4062.3DWC-QME Regulation 35DWC Medical Unit
References
Case No. ADJ5738297
Regular
Apr 13, 2011

Douglas Riedo vs. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UCSB & SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal and rescinded an order compelling attendance at a medical evaluation. The WCAB found that the employer failed to comply with Administrative Director Rule 32(d) regarding the selection of a consulting physician and rejected the employer's reliance on Labor Code section 4064(d). The Board clarified that parties cannot obtain multiple evaluations on the same issue until they receive a favorable opinion, a practice known as "doctor shopping."

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderLabor Code section 4050Labor Code section 4060Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2compensable consequence injuriesorthopedic qualified medical evaluator (QME)Administrative Director Rule 32(d)Labor Code section 4064(d)
References
Case No. ADJ3849140 (RDG 0119253)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

THEMAS TRESLER vs. MOUNTAIN SATELLITE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over workers' compensation jurisdiction regarding a left shoulder injury. The defendant, SCIF, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award of treatment for the shoulder, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This decision acknowledges that the left shoulder claim may not have been definitively resolved by prior stipulations and requires the WCJ to determine if Labor Code section 5815 applies, potentially leading to a full hearing on the shoulder injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryStipulation with Request for AwardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedContinuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5909
References
Case No. ADJ1938020 (LAO 0877660)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

FRANCISCO PEREZ vs. KING TACO RESTAURANTS, INC., AMERICAN CASUALTY

This case involves an applicant seeking reimbursement for travel expenses incurred to attend a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) appointment. The applicant relocated out of state after sustaining an industrial knee injury. The defendant initially disputed medical findings, triggering the QME process, and later refused to reimburse travel expenses to the out-of-state QME. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ruled that the applicant was entitled to travel expenses, citing relevant Labor Code sections and precedent. Sanctions were denied, and penalty issues were deferred.

ADJ1938020LAO 0877660King Taco RestaurantsInc.American CasualtyQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code Section 4062.2Labor Code Section 4061Labor Code Section 4600
References
Case No. ADJ2728444 (MON 0350632) ADJ2607754 (MON 0350633) ADJ3092568 (MON 0350634) ADJ4333657 (MON 0350635)
Regular
Aug 09, 2012

FELISA LOPEZ vs. TARGET CORPORATION

The Appeals Board denied Felisa Lopez's Petition for Removal, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's order for her to attend an examination by Dr. Markovitz under Labor Code section 4050. While the examination is permitted, Dr. Markovitz's report will not be admissible as evidence due to discovery limitations under Labor Code sections 4061(h), 4062(a), and 4062.2. Consequently, the report cannot be shared with the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Gillis, nor can it be referenced during his deposition.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEDiscoveryLabor Code section 4050Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2Admissible EvidenceDepositionInternal Medicine
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,346 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