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. ADJ2623515 (SJO 0244721) ADJ1776322 (SJO 0250018)
Regular
Feb 10, 2010

THU-HA TRAN vs. THERMO LASER SCIENCE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

This case concerns Matrix Absence Management's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision regarding cost reimbursement for applicant Thu-Ha Tran's lumbar spine treatment. The arbitrator previously found insufficient evidence to compel reimbursement between Matrix and St. Paul Travelers. Matrix's petition lacked verification, a requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The Board dismissed the petition because Matrix failed to cure this defect despite notice. Even if verified, the Board would have denied the petition based on the original arbitrator's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyFindings and OrderReimbursementLumbar SpineMatrix Absence Management
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matrix Essentials v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

L'Oreal, successor to Matrix, moved to hold Quality King Distributors, Inc., Glenn Nussdorf, and non-parties Ruth Nussdorf, Pro’s Choice Beauty Care, Inc., and GSN Trucking Corp. in civil contempt for violating a 1990 injunction. The injunction prohibited the sale of 'professional use only' Matrix products. L'Oreal alleged sales via Quality King's website and Pro's Choice's distribution. The court found that factual issues remained regarding whether violations occurred, whether they were de minimus, inadvertent, or promptly cured, and if the 1990 Defendants failed to exercise reasonable diligence. Similar factual uncertainties precluded a finding of successor or aider and abettor liability for the non-parties. Therefore, the court denied L'Oreal's motions for civil contempt and expedited discovery, ordering the parties to proceed to discovery for a trial on the merits.

Civil ContemptInjunction EnforcementTrademark InfringementProduct DiversionSuccessor LiabilityAider and Abettor LiabilityLaches DefenseExpedited DiscoveryCorporate Spin-offProfessional Products
References
17
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06000 [187 AD3d 1395]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2020

Matter of Capraro v. Matrix Absence Mgt.

Claimant, a home-based claims examiner, was injured while moving unassembled new office furniture to his home office after his employer declined to cover the expense. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, but both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Board had applied a novel, rigid standard for at-home employees, limiting compensability to injuries during regular work hours and active work duties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found this new standard unsupported by precedent and inconsistent with the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Law, emphasizing that a regular pattern of work at home makes the residence a place of employment. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter, instructing the Board to apply the long-established standard to determine if the activity was "purely personal" or "reasonable and sufficiently work related."

Workers' CompensationArising out of employmentCourse of employmentWork-from-home injuryOffice furniturePersonal activity vs. work-relatedAppellate reviewRemittalBoard decision reversalHome as workplace
References
20
Case No. ADJ2317869
Regular
Aug 04, 2009

ALLEN BONET vs. HONDA OF OAKLAND, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Honda of Oakland and Matrix Absence Management. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition because the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which are the strict requirements for removal. The Administrative Law Judge recommended denial, citing significant issues with the medical records and the applicant's inconsistent testimony regarding his date of injury. The ALJ had taken the matter out of submission to further develop the record, specifically to determine the correct date of injury, which is crucial for evaluating the defendants' post-termination and statute of limitations defenses.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ2317869Allen BonetHonda of OaklandMatrix Absence ManagementOrder Denying Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryAOE/COE
References
4
Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Aug 03, 2010

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP., MATRIX SAN JOSE

This case concerns applicant Balgovind Sharma's claim for workers' compensation penalties against Lam Research Corp. and Matrix San Jose for alleged unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment. Following a stipulation on August 4, 2009, which agreed to authorize specific treatments, applicant sought penalties for sixteen prior, unaddressed treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that applicant did not "expressly exclude" penalty claims from the stipulation as required by Labor Code section 5814(c). Consequently, all accrued penalty claims, including those not specifically mentioned in the stipulation, were conclusively presumed resolved by the stipulation.

ADJ4387448Lam Research Corp.Matrix San JoseBalgovind SharmaReconsiderationStipulationMedical treatment authorizationPetition for PenaltyUnreasonable DelaySection 5814(c)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pendock v. Matrix Communications Group

The claimant, having sustained a work-related injury, was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Following a third-party negligence action, the employer's workers' compensation carrier sought to offset the claimant's net recovery against future benefits, leading to a dispute over whether the carrier's share of litigation costs would reduce this credit. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled against the claimant and imposed a penalty on his attorney, Aaron Zimmerman. However, this Board decision was subsequently rescinded by a full Board resolution, and a new decision modified the WCLJ's ruling without reimposing the penalty. Consequently, the appeal from the original, rescinded Board decision, including the challenge to the attorney's penalty, was dismissed as moot by the court.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionCarrier's CreditLitigation CostsMoot AppealPenalty RescindedOffset PeriodNet RecoveryAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ3479900 (POM 0272059) ADJ3173924 (POM 0272060) ADJ1790357 (POM 0272061)
Regular
Jun 01, 2012

RAUL ALDAZ vs. SAN BERNARDINO STEEL, MATRIX

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed more than 25 days after the Joint Findings and Order. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition failed to comply with procedural requirements, including proper filing and referencing supporting evidence. The ALJ also concluded that the lien claimant's evidence did not establish liability for the medical evaluation in question. Therefore, the Board ordered the Petition for Reconsideration dismissed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimelyLien ClaimantIndustrial HealthcareDr. Norman ReichwaldPrimary Treating PhysicianCCR 9785Labor Code Section 4061.5
References
1
Case No. ADJ9148328
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

PERCY NOEL vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, MATRIX ROCKLIN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Percy Noel's Petitions for Removal. The WCAB found the petitions were untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day deadline for removal petitions from a non-final decision served by mail. Proof of mailing was insufficient, and the WCAB requires actual receipt within the time limit. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petitions on their merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeService by MailFiling DeadlineNon-final DecisionWCJ ReportDismissalCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
3
Case No. ADJ2317869 (OAK 0344295)
Regular
Mar 15, 2011

ALLEN BONET vs. HONDA OF OAKLAND, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding that applicant sustained industrial injury to his spine. The Board found applicant's claim is barred by the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Applicant failed to prove any exceptions to this defense, as there was no substantial evidence of employer notice of the alleged injury prior to termination. Furthermore, pre-termination medical records did not document the claimed back injury.

Allen BonetHonda of OaklandMatrix Absence ManagementADJ2317869OAK 0344295Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationWCJindustrial injuryspine
References
0
Case No. ADJ10020118
Regular
Mar 10, 2017

MARIA PUCHETA GARCIA vs. CHILD DEVELOPMENT INC; MATRIX

The Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the Applicant's Petition for Removal, as it found no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant this extraordinary remedy. Furthermore, the Board asserted its exclusive jurisdiction over determining the validity of replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels. Ultimately, the Board determined that a replacement QME panel was not appropriate in this case based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmQualified Medical Evaluator
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 57 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