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. ADJ9298888
Regular
Dec 02, 2016

LUCIO BARAJAS vs. BIG VALLEY LABOR, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Lucio Barajas, in case ADJ9298888. The petitioner, Barajas, withdrew the petition. Therefore, the Board has formally dismissed it. This action resolves the reconsideration phase of this specific workers' compensation matter.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardBig Valley LaborSedgwick Claims ManagementADJ9298888Fresno District OfficeLucio BarajasApplicant
References
0
Case No. VNO 0500599
Regular
Dec 28, 2007

EDUARDO M. BARAJAS vs. MOUNTAINVIEW CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

This order dismisses Eduardo M. Barajas's Petition for Reconsideration in his workers' compensation case against Mountainview Convalescent Hospital. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge's report and recommendation. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is formally dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedReport and RecommendationWCJRecord ReviewConvalescent HospitalAdministrative Law JudgeConcurringSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. ADJ6957361
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

ROBERTO BARAJAS vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by Fresno Unified School District regarding a workers' compensation award for Roberto Barajas. The District challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner improperly included grip strength loss alongside range of motion limitations, contrary to AMA Guides guidelines. Additionally, the District contested a 10% penalty for delayed permanent disability advances and sought a reduction in benefits based on an offer of regular work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings on the permanent disability rating by finding the AME appropriately applied *Almaraz/Guzman II* principles for calculating impairment. The Board also upheld the penalty for delayed advances and rejected the District's claim regarding work offer reductions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFresno Unified School DistrictRoberto BarajasFindings of Fact and Awardpermanent disabilityright wrist injuryright hand injuryright finger injurygroundskeeper/gardenerLabor Code section 4650
References
3
Case No. ADJ9762825
Regular
Feb 29, 2016

MARIA OLGA BARAJAS vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, CORVEL

This case involves Maria Olga Barajas's workers' compensation claim against Barrett Business Services and Corvel. The applicant was injured on July 20, 2014, and her attempts to change her treating physician within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) were unsuccessful. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the original award. This award allowed the applicant to seek treatment outside the MPN at the defendants' expense due to the failure to facilitate a timely change of physician.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardremovalchange of treating physicianinterim orderLabor Code § 4616.3(b)Title 8Regulations
References
2
Case No. ADJ10902181
Regular
Aug 29, 2018

ARTURO GUARDADO BARAJAS vs. VALMONT INDUSTRIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that Arturo Guardado Barajas' claim for a right shoulder injury on June 27, 2016, was not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who gave great weight to the applicant's credible testimony. The WCJ found that the employer had sufficient notice of the injury prior to termination, based on the applicant's phone message to his supervisor and his statement to HR. The defense's failure to produce phone records to rebut the applicant's testimony further supported this finding.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 3600(a)(10)post-termination defenseAOE/COEcredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Agreed Medical Evaluatornotice of injuryBraewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
3
Case No. ADJ9191721, ADJ7337791
Regular
Nov 09, 2017

RICARDO BARAJAS vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by the defendant school district regarding an award to the applicant, Ricardo Barajas. The applicant sustained injuries on October 26, 2012, impacting multiple body parts and resulting in $70\%$ permanent partial disability. The defendant contested the finding that applicant suffered from GERD and that it contributed $25\%$ to his whole person impairment, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the QME's reports on GERD, including causation and impairment, constituted substantial evidence. The Board affirmed that the AMA Guides allow for clinical judgment, and Dr. Sherman's opinions were supported by his examination, medical records, and cited research.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRicardo BarajasAntelope Valley Union High School DistrictCORVEL CORPORATIONFindings Award and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorDr. Shermangastroesophageal reflux diseaseGERDwhole person impairment
References
0
Case No. ADJ3316021 (VNO 0526811)
Regular
Aug 21, 2017

ANTONIO BARAJAS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICKI CMS

In *Barajas v. Los Angeles Unified School District*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied. Furthermore, the Board determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision ultimately issued. Therefore, removal was deemed an inappropriate and extraordinary remedy in this instance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadministrative law judgeWCJ reportextraordinary remedyCortéz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. IBM Restaurants Inc.

Plaintiffs Lucio Alvarez, et al., filed a putative collective action against IBM Restaurants, Roger Bedoian, Daniel Iannucci, and Vincenzo Iannucci, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of the class and to facilitate notice. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, establishing a class of employees who worked for the defendants in the last three years. The court further directed the parties to submit a revised Notice of Pendency, limiting the notice period to three years based on the FLSA's statute of limitations for willful violations, and ordered the defendants to produce a list of putative class members from November 4, 2007, to the present. The court also instructed that the revised notice should include minimum wage claims and deferred the defendants' request for removal of specific defendants.

FLSANew York State Labor LawCollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayMinimum WageWage and HourStatute of LimitationsNotice of PendencyEmployee Rights
References
28
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01740 [214 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Galicia v. Asrar

Lucio Galicia, injured in an accident, received workers' compensation benefits from Tower Insurance Company. Defendant tendered a settlement offer of $25,000. Galicia's attorney, Friedman, was to receive $8,333, and Tower the remainder, but Galicia declined the settlement. Tower intervened to protect its lien. Friedman moved for discharge and a charging lien of $8,333.33, representing his share of the rejected settlement. The Supreme Court granted Friedman's motion for a charging lien. The Appellate Division reversed this order, stating the motion court erred as the sum never attached to a settlement or judgment. The court also noted it was unclear how much work Friedman did or the amount of recovery. Tower was not estopped from opposing Friedman's claim as its position was consistent and it received no benefit from its prior position.

Charging LienWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAttorney FeesEquitable ApportionmentSettlement RejectionIntervenorQuantum MeruitStatutory LienAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ6779017; ADJ6779034
Regular
Oct 13, 2012

YURI BARAJAS vs. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal regarding a workers' compensation lien claim. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinding a prior order that took issues off calendar. The Board found the administrative law judge erred by bifurcating issues and taking the case off calendar based on dissatisfaction with evidence. The Board emphasized that parties have the burden of proof and should present all necessary evidence at trial for decision. The case is returned to the trial level for a full decision based on submitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings and OrdersWCJlien claimantreasonableness of treatmentnecessity of treatmentMedical Provider Network (MPN)agreed medical evaluator (AME)burden of proof
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 33 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