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. ADJ4699108
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

JUAN PARRA vs. CARNIVAL FUMIGATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, La Peer Surgery Center, seeking payment for facility fees related to chiropractic manipulations under anesthesia. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original finding that the services were neither reasonable nor necessary. The decision was based on the fact that manipulations under anesthesia are not recommended by the ACOEM guidelines, and the lien claimant failed to provide evidence to rebut this presumption.

Lien claimantReconsiderationFinding of Fact and OrderCarnival FumigationState Compensation Insurance FundLa Peer Surgery Centercompromise and releasereasonable and necessarymedical treatmentLabor Code section 4903(b)
References
8
Case No. ADJ7421461
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

Bryan Cruz vs. KLLM TRANSPORTATION, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a dismissal order for failure to prosecute, finding that the applicant's attorneys' petition lacked merit and potentially constituted bad-faith tactics. The Board is issuing a notice of intent to sanction applicant's attorneys, jointly and severally, for up to $1,500 for frivolous actions and tactics, specifically noting a pattern of similar filings. The Board also noted the applicant's attorneys consented to the dismissal at a hearing where the applicant did not appear, and the petition for reconsideration failed to address these critical points. Sanctions are intended to address violations of rules regarding frivolous filings and willful non-compliance.

Petition for ReconsiderationRule 10582Failure to ProsecuteSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Rule 10561Bad Faith ActionsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
8
Case No. 620/89
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1990

People v. Brunskill

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant argued that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to various alleged failures of his trial attorney. The court reviewed the trial tactics, noting that counsel called alibi witnesses and cross-examined prosecution witnesses. The court found that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, concluding that unsuccessful tactics do not automatically indicate ineffectiveness. The judgment was affirmed, and the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment was deemed 30 years and the minimum 15 years, in accordance with Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (c) (i).

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesIneffective Assistance of CounselAlibi DefenseAppellate ReviewSentencing GuidelinesTrial TacticsCriminal ProcedureJury VerdictJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Transcontinental Insurance

Plaintiff, an electrical contractor, faced lawsuits from Pyramid Company related to worker injuries, including claims for indemnification and contribution (covered by insurance) and breach of contract for failing to name Pyramid as an additional insured (uncovered). The defendant insurer acknowledged a conflict of interest and permitted the plaintiff to select independent counsel. Plaintiff's counsel made a tactical decision not to oppose Pyramid's motion for summary judgment on indemnification, aiming to protect the plaintiff from greater liability on the uncovered claim, despite potentially adverse effects on the defendant's interests regarding covered claims. Consequently, the defendant disclaimed coverage, citing non-cooperation. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that an insured's independent counsel, acting in the insured's paramount interest during a conflict with the insurer, can make such tactical decisions without breaching cooperation clauses or assuming obligations.

conflict of interestindependent counselinsurance coverageduty to defendindemnificationbreach of contracttactical litigation decisionsinsurer's good faithinsured's rightsprofessional responsibility
References
4
Case No. 13 Civ. 7789
Regular Panel Decision

Simmtech Co. v. Barclays Bank PLC

This case involves a consolidated class action brought by U.S.-based plaintiffs and two separate foreign actions, all alleging a long-running conspiracy among twelve major banks to manipulate benchmark rates in the foreign exchange (FX) market. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant banks violated Sections 1 and 8 of the Sherman Act by engaging in collusive trading strategies, such as 'front running,' 'banging the close,' and 'painting the screen,' facilitated through electronic chat rooms. This alleged manipulation aimed to fix the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates (the 'Fix'), allowing defendants to earn supra-competitive profits. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action, finding the allegations of a price-fixing conspiracy and antitrust injury plausible. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the two Foreign Actions, concluding that they are barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) and lack a sufficient nexus to New York for state law claims, thus dismissing them with prejudice.

Antitrust LawSherman ActForeign Exchange MarketFX ManipulationPrice-fixing ConspiracyClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFinancial MarketsGlobal BankingRegulatory Enforcement
References
37
Case No. ADJ7582920
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

CRAIG SCHULTZ vs. JOINT TEST, TACTICS \u0026 TRAINING/JT3, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding, holding that the applicant's injury sustained during his commute to work is barred by the "going and coming" rule. While the WCJ found a transportation exception applied due to the employer potentially benefiting from the applicant's personal vehicle, the WCAB found no such exception was proven. The Board emphasized that the applicant was commuting outside of work hours in his personal car, and no evidence indicated he was engaged in a special mission or that the employer required him to use his own vehicle. Therefore, the applicant's claim was denied as it did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment.

Going and Coming RuleTransportation ExceptionIndustrial InjuryTechnical DrafterEdwards Air Force BasePersonal Vehicle UseEmployer BenefitCourse of EmploymentSpecial MissionLabor Code Section 3600
References
15
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Sep 21, 2011

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. Daniel Escamilla

Notice of a hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear before the WCAB due to a pattern of repeated sanctions for bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and filing pleadings with false statements of fact.

Labor Code 4907Privilege SuspensionRemoval of PrivilegeBad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary DelayWillful Non-ComplianceDisruption of ProceedingsMeritleless ArgumentsSanctions
References
28
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Sep 21, 2011

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear as a representative, citing a history of sanctions for bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and causing unnecessary delays.

Labor Code Section 4907Privilege SuspensionRepresentative MisconductBad Faith ActionsFrivolous PleadingsMisrepresentations of FactAppeals Board RulesState Bar RulesWCJ SanctionsHearing Representative
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 190 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