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. ADJ8218679
Regular
Aug 05, 2013

WANDA REBECCA CAREY vs. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted Macy's petition for reconsideration of a previous decision in the case of Wanda Rebecca Carey. This decision allows the Board to further study the factual and legal issues involved to ensure a just and reasoned outcome. Pending a new decision, all future filings must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or via e-filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemFresno District OfficeOffice of the CommissionersMacy's West StoresWanda Rebecca CareySelf-Insured
References
Case No. ADJ7885937
Regular
Apr 16, 2013

TARA MILLER vs. MACY'S WEST/MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

This case involves Tara Miller's workers' compensation claim against Macy's West for a slip and fall injury. Macy's petitioned for reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) decision finding injury AOE/COE to the applicant's left wrist and back. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the applicant credible and the evidence supported the injury finding. Additionally, the petition was denied as it was not properly verified as required by Labor Code section 5902.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredWCJ credibilityLabor Code section 5902improperly verifiedinjury AOE/COEtemporary disabilityDefense Exhibit E
References
Case No. ADJ1384238 (SAC 0366460)
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

ROSA VIRGEN vs. MACY'S WEST, MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES-RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's West's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's decision not to grant a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found that a late supplemental report alone does not mandate a replacement QME under LC 4062.5 or AD Rule 31.5(a)(12). Granting a replacement QME for untimely supplemental reporting is discretionary and requires a showing of good cause, which Macy's failed to demonstrate. The Appeals Board retains exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of replacement panels.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluationPQMEReplacement PanelMedical DirectorTimelinessSupplemental ReportGood CausePrejudice
References
Case No. ADJ7432459, ADJ7432589
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

COLLETT WITHERS vs. MACY'S, MACY'S WEST, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the Petition for Removal, rescinded the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) May 7, 2013 order setting the case for trial, and took the matter off calendar. This action returns the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. The WCAB adopted the ALJ's report as the basis for its decision.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJMarina del Rey District OfficeGranting PetitionRescinded OrderTaken Off CalendarFurther ProceedingsAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ7270261
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

MEKAL FARUKI vs. MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES

This case involves Mekal Faruki's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely. Labor Code section 5903 establishes a strict 20-day deadline for filing reconsideration petitions, with a possible 5-day extension for mailing. Critically, the petition is considered filed upon receipt, not mailing date. Faruki's petition was filed over 25 days after the December 10, 2010 decision, rendering it jurisdictionally barred.

Mekal FarukiMacy's Department StoresPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSacramento District Office
References
Case No. ADJ1749318 (OAK 0338628)
Regular
Nov 03, 2015

EDGAR PUENTE vs. MACY'S WEST

This case involves Macy's West seeking removal of an order denying their petition for a $500 credit related to a missed QME appointment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, finding that summary denial of the credit petition would cause prejudice. The Board amended the original order to defer the issue of the credit petition until the applicant's underlying claims are settled or tried. This allows Macy's to present evidence and arguments for the credit at a later, more appropriate stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition for CreditQME appointmentLabor Code section 5811Petition for Creditmedical-legal costmissed appointment feecompensable consequencehypertension
References
Case No. ADJ8911967
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

URSULA KRAMER vs. MACY'S WEST, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

This case concerns Macy's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on a stipulation. Macy's claims mutual mistake of fact and clerical error regarding permanent disability indemnity and attorney fees. The Board denies the petition, finding no mutual mistake and that Macy's error stemmed from a lack of diligence in drafting the stipulation. The Board emphasizes that stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown, which Macy's failed to demonstrate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulationsAwardMutual Mistake of FactClerical ErrorLabor Code §4658(d)Permanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ419739 (SFO 0505150)
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

KRANTI MALIK vs. MACY'S WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded its prior decision in Kranti Malik v. Macy's West. This action was taken because the parties reached a settlement agreement. The case is now returned to the trial level for review and approval of the settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the original decision may be reinstated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSettlementRescindedTrial LevelAdministrative Law JudgeFindings of Fact/AwardSelf-insuredLabor CodeAdjudication
References
Case No. ADJ8845443; ADJ8845444
Regular
May 26, 2015

SHUN LIAO vs. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted Macy's Petition for Removal due to a lack of proper record and evidence. The prior Workers' Compensation Judge's orders regarding psychological treatment and temporary disability were rescinded. The case is returned to the trial level for proper documentation of issues, stipulations, and admitted evidence. The Board expressed no opinion on the merits of the disputed claims.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalWCJpsychological complaintsorthopedic injurycausationpsychiatric injurysubstantial evidencecompensabilityApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
Case No. ADJ3609822
Regular
Aug 06, 2012

DARLENE VOGLEZON vs. MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES

Defendant Macy's filed petitions challenging an order appointing an independent bill reviewer for ten lien claimants. The Appeals Board dismissed Macy's reconsideration petition as the order was not final but granted removal due to prejudice and irreparable harm. The Board found lien claimants failed to meet their burden to prove the reasonableness of their charges, rescinded the WCJ's order, and awarded sums based on Macy's expert testimony and evidence.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalIndependent Bill ReviewerLien ClaimantsReasonableness of ChargesBurden of ProofExpert Witness TestimonyOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleStipulated Award
References
Showing 1-10 of 616 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