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. ADJ3136701 (SFO 0461921)
Regular
Jun 01, 2012

HORST ROBERT STAHL vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that their lien was barred and ordering reimbursement of defendant's travel costs. The Board also initiated removal and intended to impose sanctions of $500 on the lien claimant's representative, Mark Gangl, and Recovery Resources, Inc. This action is due to material misrepresentations in their petition regarding the trial proceedings and costs. Sanctions are proposed for filing a petition that contained substantially misleading and factually unsupported statements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLachesLien ClaimantsTravel CostsLabor Code § 5813SanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous Tactics
References
Case No. ADJ2652747 (VNO 0344824) ADJ3178119 (VNO 0349849) ADJ4566361 (VNO 0401733)
Regular
Jun 25, 2012

MARK RAINE vs. CITYOF BURBANK

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Mark Raine, the applicant, in his workers' compensation claims against the City of Burbank. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the report of the Workers' Compensation Judge. For the reasons stated in the Judge's report, which the Board adopted, the petition for reconsideration has been denied. Therefore, the Board has ordered that the petition for reconsideration be denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ2652747ADJ3178119ADJ4566361CITY OF BURBANKVNO 0344824VNO 0349849VNO 0401733DENYING RECONSIDERATIONWCJ REPORT
References
Case No. ADJ6500027
Regular
Jun 22, 2009

MARK SCOTT vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding that applicant Mark Scott sustained an industrial injury to his left knee. The Board found that the medical evidence presented, specifically operative reports, lacked any causation analysis and therefore did not substantially support the finding of industrial injury. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record concerning causation. The Board also deferred ruling on the statute of limitations defense pending this further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California EdisonMark ScottAOE/COEStatute of LimitationsContinuous TraumaCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 5405Reynolds v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Statute of Limitations Tolling
References
Case No. ADJ7198861
Regular
Dec 06, 2013

MARK PAPISH vs. SOLANO GARBAGE COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE

In Mark Papish v. Solano Garbage Company, both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of a September 27, 2013 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted these petitions, citing the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to allow for a complete understanding of the record and to ensure a just decision after reconsideration. All future filings in this matter must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners' Office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationSolano Garbage CompanyZurich InsuranceCannon Cochran Management ServicesMark PapishOakland District OfficeDelana E. LoweW.A.R.R.R.Ronnie G. Caplane
References
Case No. ADJ10454611
Regular
Jun 14, 2018

MARK ELLIOTT vs. CUSTOM WOOD FINISHING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Mark Elliott's Petition for Reconsideration in case ADJ10454611. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in its decision. No specific details of the original claim or the WCJ's report are provided in this excerpt. Therefore, the basis for the denial remains unspecified.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ reportAdoptedIncorporatedMark ElliottCustom Wood FinishingState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
Case No. ADJ1342611 (VNO 0441003), ADJ1741808 (VNO 0451440), ADJ1305070 (VNO 0443590), ADJ1323906 (VNO 0450865)
Regular
Jan 08, 2014

Mark A. Margolis vs. Albertson, Sedgwick CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by the petitioner. This dismissal occurred because the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their petition. The original decision being reconsidered was issued on October 18, 2012. This order officially closes the reconsideration process for that decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalWithdrawn PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlbertsonSedgwick CMSMark MargolisOctober 18 2012 decisionADJ1342611VNO 0441003
References
Case No. ADJ6815947; ADJ6815951
Regular
Oct 14, 2013

MARK FELDMAN vs. HOLOGIC INC.; TRAVELERS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision in this workers' compensation case. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The Board aims to issue a just and reasoned decision after a complete understanding of the record and potentially further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting PetitionStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersSan Bernardino District OfficeHologic Inc.
References
Case No. ADJ9519790
Regular
Sep 10, 2019

MARK CARREON vs. CLEVELAND INDIANS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS

This case concerns the Cleveland Indians' petition for reconsideration, arguing that California workers' compensation jurisdiction is barred under Labor Code Section 3600.5(d) due to the applicant's last year of employment with the Jackson Diamond Cats. The Board affirmed the original award, finding the Indians failed to meet their burden of proving the exemption. The applicant's employment with the Diamond Cats was not established as "professional athlete" employment under the statute, nor was it proven that the Diamond Cats qualified for exemption under Section 3600.5(c) as the applicant did not work in California for that team. Furthermore, the Indians failed to identify or prove any other law exempting the Diamond Cats from California jurisdiction.

Labor Code 3600.5WCAB jurisdictionprofessional athlete exemptioncumulative trauma injuryMark CarreonCleveland IndiansSan Francisco GiantsCIGAGallagher BassettJackson Diamond Cats
References
Case No. ADJ9451959; ADJ9451967
Regular
Aug 22, 2019

MARK YANCHUNIS vs. SHASTA GOLD CORPORATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCJ properly relied on the agreed medical evaluator's (AME) opinion, which provided substantial evidence for the impairment rating. The AME's analysis, which accounted for severe degenerative changes and gait abnormalities beyond a strict AMA guide application, was deemed persuasive and within legal parameters. The Board affirmed that the AME's reasoning for adding impairments due to a synergistic effect, rather than combining them, was supported by case law and the medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMark YanchunisShasta Gold CorporationZurich American Insurance CompanyADJ9451959ADJ9451967Petition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Almaraz/Guzman analysisAMA Guides
References
Showing 1-10 of 165 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