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. ADJ10373093
Regular

LAN YU vs. RCS, INCORPORATED, WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying this extraordinary remedy. Reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy should a final adverse decision issue later. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ1764832 (SFO 0511779)
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

PATRICK YU vs. NEIMAN MARCUS, LIBERTY MUTUAL SACRAMENTO

This case involves applicant Patrick Yu's workers' compensation claim against Neiman Marcus, insured by Liberty Mutual. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order denying Yu's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge in its decision. Therefore, the applicant's request for reconsideration of the prior ruling has been formally denied.

Order Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeiman MarcusLiberty MutualADJ1764832SFO 0511779Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportWCJApplicant
References
Case No. ADJ10357068
Regular
Jan 31, 2020

QING YU vs. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal regarding an order compelling a medical re-evaluation, rescinding the original order. The applicant was denied due process because the compelling order lacked proof of service and she was not afforded a hearing to present evidence on her allegations concerning defendant's actions. The Board remanded the matter for further proceedings and recommended the trial judge consider the submitted Compromise and Release settlement.

WCABQing YuPacific Gas & ElectricPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Jeffrey L. Gould M.D.Petition to Compel Medical ExaminationDefective ServiceDue Process
References
Case No. LBO 367820
Regular
Jan 25, 2008

YU LIN JU vs. CHARLES JIA, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding that the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee. The WCJ found the applicant falsely represented having a contractor's license and insurance, estopping him from claiming employee status under Labor Code Section 2750.5. The Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility determination, which found the employer's testimony more credible.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers' FundPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeReconsideration DeniedCredibility FindingIndependent ContractorLabor Code Section 2750.5Rebuttable PresumptionEstoppel
References
Case No. ADJ7379899
Regular
Nov 12, 2012

DARRIN LANNING vs. BAYWOOD INTERIORS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the WCJ erred by deeming the post-termination defense moot. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) provides a defense against claims filed after termination or layoff, and this issue is not moot if an industrial injury is found. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the post-termination defense applies and, if so, whether applicant meets any exceptions. The merits of the original finding of industrial injury were not decided and are subject to a new ruling after the post-termination defense is resolved.

AOE/COEpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)industrial injurycabinetmakerlower backleft groinright kneemootfindings of fact
References
Case No. VNO 0506722
Regular
Aug 29, 2007

AURELIA YU vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/ CALTRANS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, specifically challenging the permanent disability rating based on an internal medicine report instead of a psychiatric one. The Appeals Board denied the reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the applicant's only industrially injured condition was hypertension, making the internal medicine report the appropriate basis for the rating. The Board also corrected a clerical error in the original award, changing "weekly" to "monthly" for the average earnings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONCALTRANSSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AWARD AND ORDERINDUSTRIAL INJURYPSYCHEHYPERTENSIONPERMANENT DISABILITY
References
Case No. ADJ3389162 (LAO 0852819)
Regular
Mar 26, 2013

Jin Yu vs. CWCM, INC., Y.C., INC., Zenith Insurance

This case involved a lien claimant, Dr. Gromis, whose claim for medical treatment reimbursement was disallowed. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinding a $1,000 sanction previously imposed on Dr. Gromis for frivolous bad faith. The Board found that Dr. Gromis' pursuit of his lien was not frivolous, as the issue of applicant's employment was not clearly raised by the defendant prior to the lien trial, and he lacked proper notice of a prior ruling disallowing employment. The Board upheld the disallowance of Dr. Gromis' lien for medical treatment.

Lien claimantReconsiderationSanctionBad faithFrivolous actionEmployment statusCompromise and ReleasePre-trial conference statementFindings and OrderCollateral estoppel
References
Case No. ADJ8314506
Regular
May 05, 2015

OH SOON YU vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IHSS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal and rescinded the prior order denying dismissal. The Board found the applicant's attorney had failed to demonstrate contact with the applicant or compliance with discovery orders for two years. The case is returned to the trial level for a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, unless the applicant clearly indicates intent to proceed. Failure to show good cause will result in dismissal.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition for Dismissallack of prosecutionApplication for Adjudication of Claimin home support service workerindustrial injurydenieddiscovery ordersNotice of Intention to Dismiss Applicationlien claimant
References
Case No. ADJ10324875
Regular
Sep 19, 2016

YU QIN ZHU vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IHSS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision. The Board found that the applicant, a caregiver for IHSS, did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment when she was hit by a car while cycling between clients. The Board determined that her commute between clients did not fall under an exception to the "going and coming" rule as she chose her clients, work hours, and method of transportation for her own convenience. Therefore, the Board substituted its own finding that the injury was not compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIHSSYork Risk Services GroupInc.ADJ10324875Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Labor Code Section 3351.5
References
Showing 1-9 of 9 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