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. ADJ9338501
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

MARTIN TORRES vs. LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Martin Torres v. Loral Landscaping, Inc. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew their Petition for Reconsideration. Consequently, the WCAB vacated its order granting reconsideration and dismissed the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationVacatedDismissedLoral LandscapingSecurity National Insurance CompanyAmtrust North AmericaMartin TorresADJ9338501
References
Case No. ADJ8132169
Regular
Jul 14, 2015

HILARIO LOPEZ vs. LIBERTY LANDSCAPING, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the defendant, Liberty Landscaping and its insurer, sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board granted reconsideration, finding it necessary to conduct further study of the factual and legal issues. This allows for a more thorough review to ensure a just and reasoned outcome. All future communications regarding the petition for reconsideration must be directed to the Appeals Board's San Francisco office, not district offices, and should not be e-filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLiberty LandscapingZurich North American Insurance CompanyADJ8132169Van Nuys District OfficeOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
Case No. ADJ10362335
Regular
Mar 06, 2018

WILLIBALDO DURAN ESCANDON vs. VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a Findings and Award, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The Applicant alleged a left shoulder injury sustained while employed as a landscaper on February 25, 2016. The Board found the WCJ's credibility determinations, based on observing witnesses, to be sound and supported by substantial evidence. The WCJ appropriately admitted an employer letter rebutting testimony about the date of injury and employment. Medical evidence from Dr. McCreesh supported an industrial injury, while Dr. Poon's opinions were deemed speculative and inflammatory.

WILLIBALDO DURAN ESCANDONVALLEYCREST LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCECHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCEESISRECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND AWARDGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility determinationsADJ10362335Mandtory Settlement Conference (MSC)Pre-Trial Conference Statement
References
Case No. ADJ13900666
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

German Renteria Pina vs. Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, Da Vinci Schools

German Renteria Pina, the applicant, sustained a specific injury while employed by Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, an uninsured entity. Da Vinci Schools, a permissibly self-insured entity, was also named as a defendant. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that Pina was an employee of Diaz and not Da Vinci, arguing errors in employment burden of proof and insufficient evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was made because the record was deemed incomplete to adequately determine Diaz's independent contractor status or the applicability of licensing requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundMiguel Diaz dba Brother LandscapeDa Vinci SchoolsAdjudication NumberPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJBurden of ProofUltimate Hirer
References
Case No. ADJ1642575 (MON 0336492)
Regular
Mar 23, 2009

JUAN JOSE AYALA vs. GUILLERMO DUENAS, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous finding that his claim was barred. The Board found the applicant was an employee of the defendant under Labor Code section 3357, based on unrebutted testimony of an agreement for landscaping services at $80 per day across multiple jobs. The defendant failed to overcome the statutory presumption of employment. Therefore, the applicant is found to have been employed by the defendant at the time of his alleged injury.

Labor Code section 3352(h)Labor Code section 3357Labor Code section 3351(d)WCJPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factrescindedemployment statuspresumption of employmentlandscaper
References
Case No. ADJ6763029
Regular
Dec 11, 2018

MARTIN RODRIGUEZ vs. VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPING, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Martin Rodriguez's Petition for Removal as untimely. The petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's July 28, 2015 decision, exceeding the allowed filing period. Timeliness requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Had it been timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDismissedWCAB Rule 10843(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)WCJ's reportService by mail
References
Case No. ADJ3880884 (SAC 0360871)
Regular
Jul 17, 2015

JORGE LOPEZ vs. HEMINGTON LANDSCAPE SERVICES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. The WCAB adopted the judge's report which found the decision at issue to be an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, not affecting substantive rights or liabilities. Additionally, the petition for removal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The applicant's attorney was also admonished for failing to include their state bar number on the pleading.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ12619223
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

FELIX RODRIGUEZ vs. SITEWORKS LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration. The Board failed to act on the petition within the statutory 60-day limit, but tolled this period due to a misplaced file, citing due process principles. However, the Applicant subsequently withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Board dismissed the withdrawn Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Administrative Law JudgeDue ProcessTollingMisplaced FileShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Statutory Time LimitsWithdrawn PetitionDismissal Order
References
Case No. ADJ710353 (VNO 0479290)
Regular
Jun 04, 2012

DIMAS POSADA vs. PARKWOOD LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCE, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCAB determined that the petition was submitted 36 days after the Order Dismissing Lien Claim was served, exceeding the statutory 20-day period plus an additional five days for mail service. As a result, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the lien claimant's arguments. The lien claimant had argued the dismissal was due to a missed hearing caused by a file transfer and timely responded to a notice.

WCABADJ710353VNO 0479290Dimas PosadaParkwood Landscape & MaintenanceEverest National Insurance CompanyBel Air Surgical InstituteExpert Medical ReviewOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lien
References
Case No. ADJ7509653, ADJ8213091
Regular
Apr 10, 2015

JOSE VALLADARES HERNANDEZ vs. AMERICAN HERITAGE LANDSCAPE, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding the decision to take the case off calendar. The defendant argued the case should proceed to trial as the applicant's primary treating physician had not issued a permanent and stationary report. However, the Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to demonstrate. Reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy, thus the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderPrimary Treating PhysicianPermanent and Stationary ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Showing 1-10 of 73 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