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. ADJ8211433
Regular
Aug 09, 2013

MARICELA TENORIO vs. DEUTSCH INDUSTRIAL, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Lopez & Associates' petition for reconsideration or removal of a WCJ's order dismissing their petition for costs. The petitioner argued the WCJ's dismissal was insufficiently explained. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and citing that medical-legal expenses cannot be claimed via a petition for costs under Labor Code section 5811. Instead, proper procedures under Labor Code section 4622 or filing a lien must be followed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderPetition for CostsMedical-legal expensesLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4622LienWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ1125092 (AHM 0152155)
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

MARICELA MURPHY vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The applicant, Maricela Murphy, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying her claim for industrial psychiatric injury. The Board denied her petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that she failed to demonstrate actual employment events were the predominant cause of her alleged injury, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1). Furthermore, the Board found that any employer actions constituted lawful, nondiscriminatory personnel actions, rendering a more complex legal analysis unnecessary. The judge's credibility determinations, favoring defense witnesses over the applicant's accounts to medical evaluators, were found to be supported by substantial evidence, particularly the lack of objective evidence of harassment.

Labor Code § 3208.3industrial psyche injuryactual events of employmentpredominant causelawful personnel actionRolda analysisWCJ findingssubstantial medical evidenceobjective evidence of harassmentcredibility determinations
References
6
Case No. ADJ7261546
Regular

MARICELA CASTANEDA vs. HUGHSON NUT COMPANY, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Maricela Castaneda's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The applicant sought benefits for injuries to her left wrist, low back, abdomen, and psyche, but the trial judge limited the compensable injuries to the left wrist and low back. The petition argued that the medical evidence regarding permanent disability and psychological causation was insufficient. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's challenges to the medical evidence lacked merit and highlighted issues with the applicant's credibility. The Board also admonished applicant's counsel for a procedural filing error.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerPQMEorthopedicpsychologicalcausationsubstantial medical evidencepermanent disabilityapportionment
References
2
Case No. ADJ8593693
Regular
Apr 24, 2015

EFREN TENORIO vs. COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Efren Tenorio's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, concluding that any alleged error regarding unadmitted evidence was harmless because counsel stipulated to the WCJ deciding based on provided documents.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportStipulationHarmless ErrorExtraordinary RemedyAdministrative Law Judge
References
2
Case No. ADJ196150 (LAO 0803808)
Regular
Jul 13, 2009

MARICELA ARELLANO vs. TELACU, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Tarzana Surgery Center regarding the reasonableness of their billed outpatient surgery fees. While the WCJ found the reasonable fee to be $20,181.00, the lien claimant argued the WCJ erred in using a CHSWC study and in reducing the lien without the defendant meeting its burden of proof. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision on the fee amount but amended the findings to clarify the admissibility of certain lien claimant exhibits and the inadmissibility of others due to lack of foundation or relevance.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeReasonable outpatient surgery feeCompromise and ReleaseCommission on Health and Safety and Workers' CompensationTapia v. Skill Master StaffingKunz v. Patterson Floor CoveringsInc.
References
2
Case No. ADJ7160003
Regular
May 30, 2018

MARICELA ESPITIA CRUZ vs. SNOWCREEK RESORT CONDOMINIUMS IMPERIUM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a lien claimant's petition for removal and denied their petition for reconsideration. The WCJ had dismissed the lien claim due to the claimant's failure to appear at a noticed lien trial. The WCAB found no good cause for the non-appearance, nor grounds for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Furthermore, the WCAB dismissed the removal petition as reconsideration, not removal, was the proper remedy for a final order dismissing a lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLien TrialWCJDismissalFailure to AppearGood CauseCode of Civil Procedure Section 473
References
7
Case No. ADJ8583264, ADJ8583294
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

MARICELA MACEDO vs. KINGSBURG APPLE PACKERS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition to disqualify the judge. The claimant alleged bias based on the judge's statements regarding late-filed exhibits and a violation of due process for not admitting their trial exhibits. The Board found no evidence of an unqualified opinion or enmity sufficient for disqualification. Furthermore, the issue of exhibit admissibility was deemed premature as the judge had not yet made a decision.

Lien claimantDisqualificationWCJDue processTrial exhibitsPre-trial ordersEx parte communicationPetition for reconsiderationOrder vacating submissionLabor Code section 4622
References
0
Case No. ADJ3115086 (LAO 0814105)
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

MARICELA PADILLA vs. JOY KIDS CORPORATION, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration due to multiple procedural defects. The petition was not verified as required by statute and appealed an interim notice of dismissal rather than a final order. Furthermore, the petition failed to articulate specific legal grounds for reconsideration. The Board noted that the lien claimant should have filed an objection with the Workers' Compensation Judge, and warned of potential sanctions for future procedural errors.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissUnverified PetitionFailure to AppearLien TrialWCJFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5902
References
5
Case No. ADJ15513907
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

MARICELA LEON vs. ADVANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE INC., SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST CONCORD

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction over medical treatment reasonableness due to a timely utilization review (UR) determination. The applicant argued the UR decision was untimely because it was not served on counsel within two days. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that a UR decision, even if timely made, is invalid if not timely communicated. Therefore, the matter was returned for a new decision, requiring the WCJ to determine if the UR decision was timely communicated and to adjudicate medical necessity if it was not.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewTimelinessMedical TreatmentPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactLabor CodeDubon IIBodamIndependent Medical Review
References
5
Case No. LBO 0299050
Regular
Sep 10, 2007

MARICELA TAROS vs. WEST COAST AEROSPACE, INC.; AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE CO., Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because no benefits had yet been awarded, rendering the petition premature. The Board also noted that the Workers' Compensation Judge likely lacked jurisdiction to award temporary disability benefits beyond five years from the date of injury, as the alleged disability arose outside this period. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as both premature and procedurally questionable regarding jurisdiction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to ReopenStipulated AwardTemporary Total DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerDate of InjuryJurisdictionNew and Further DisabilityAggrieved Party
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13 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