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. ADJ 871529
Regular
Aug 28, 2008

DAVID PETTYJOHN vs. MILLERICK ENGINEERING, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Reconsideration granted to address miscalculation of applicant's average weekly earnings. WCJ's findings regarding intoxication and serious and willful misconduct affirmed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryForklift OperatorMillerick EngineeringMajestic Insurance CompanyAverage Weekly EarningsAffirmative DefenseIntoxicationSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
Case No. ADJ10275844
Regular
Apr 26, 2018

MARIA RIVERA vs. WELMORE TOOL & ENGINEERING, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision in Rivera v. Welmore Tool & Engineering. This action was taken because a settlement has been reached during the pendency of the reconsideration. Consequently, the prior decision is rescinded, and the case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. The WCJ will either approve the settlement or reinstate the original decision, with the option for either party to seek further reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionReturn to Trial LevelProposed SettlementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DecisionAdministrative Law JudgeFurther ProceedingsDecision After Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8967877
Regular
Apr 16, 2015

TEOFILO ALVAREZ vs. WETMORE TOOLS AND ENGINEERING, OLD REPUBLIC, GALLAGHER BASSETT NOVA CASUALTY, YORK

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Teofilo Alvarez, against Wetmore Tools and Engineering and their insurers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed more than 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision was served. The WCAB emphasized that the filing deadline is jurisdictional, meaning the Board lacks authority to consider untimely petitions. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailWCJ ReportAppeals BoardDismissed PetitionLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsProof of Mailing
References
Case No. ADJ2219612 (LBO 0392747)
Regular
Dec 20, 2013

JUAN RUIZ vs. WAKEFIELD ENGINEERING/LOCKHART INDUSTRIES, THE HARTFORD

This case involved a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board found the petition untimely because it was not filed within the statutory 20-day period plus 5 days for mailing. Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition. The petition was therefore dismissed as untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimelyJurisdictionLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Administrative Law JudgeWCJLien ClaimantWakefield Engineering
References
Case No. LAO 0786323, MON 0300627
Regular
Jul 09, 2008

SALVADOR TEJEDA vs. RALLE ENGINEERING, ST. PAUL/TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the WCJ's apportionment of permanent disability was not supported by substantial evidence, despite a stipulation to a cumulative trauma injury. The Board amended the decisions to defer issues of permanent disability and apportionment, returning the cases to the trial level for further development of the record on these specific points. The existing findings on injury, excluding apportionment, were otherwise affirmed.

Salvador TejedaRalle EngineeringSt. Paul/Travelers InsuranceLAO 0786323MON 0300627Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
Case No. ADJ1463963 (POM 0273971 ADJ3120431 (POM 0268474)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

RUBEN ORTIZ vs. LINKS-NILSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, DAART ENGINEERING, XL FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Ruben Ortiz seeking workers' compensation benefits. The primary issue is whether the applicant's injuries from a specific incident are compensable under workers' compensation law. The litigation involves multiple defendants, including the applicant's employer, its insurer (in liquidation), and the California Insurance Guarantee Association, alongside other entities. The core dispute centers on the causal link between the employment and the claimed injuries. The outcome will determine the extent of benefits Ortiz is entitled to and the responsibility of the named defendants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantLinks-Nilsen CorporationCalifornia Compensation Insurance CompanyliquidationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationDaart EngineeringXL Fire ProtectionState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
Case No. SBR 0332348
Regular
Dec 07, 2007

WILLIAM VOGT vs. HERNANDEZ, KROONE & ASSOCIATES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial denial of benefits, and found that the applicant sustained industrial injury. The Board determined that the applicant, a civil engineer who was provided a vehicle and paid for travel time, was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of his vehicle collision, despite being found traveling in the opposite direction of his commute. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryMotor Vehicle CollisionCourse of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleMaterial DeviationEmployer Provided VehiclePaid Travel TimePreponderance of EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9464655
Regular
Dec 21, 2020

JOSE GARCIA vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, PSI, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a worker's compensation claim where the employer sought a third-party credit against the applicant's settlement. The Appeals Board amended the findings to attribute 5% of the fault to the applicant and 95% to the employer's employees. Despite the applicant's settlement of $26,000, the employer was denied credit because their 95% fault ($24,700) exceeded the applicant's net recovery ($17,500). The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the employer's contribution based on their fault exceeded the credit amount, thus preventing a credit for future benefits.

third-party creditcomparative negligenceemployer negligenceMartinez v. Associated EngineeringLabor Code section 3861settlementindustrial injuryWCJ credibilityproximate causeAssociated Construction & Engineering Co.
References
Case No. ADJ9920215
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

ALICIA OLMOS vs. JM CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denies the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding the applicant failed to prove causation for her claimed industrial injury by a preponderance of the evidence. Although the WCAB can amend pleadings to conform to proof, the applicant still bears the burden of proof. Additionally, the applicant's attorney was admonished for citing evidence not admitted into the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeAmendment of PleadingsBurden of ProofIndustrial InjuryCausationEvidence AdmittedAppeals Board Rule 10842(c)Advocacy Letter
References
Case No. SDO 0328208
Regular
Mar 17, 2008

ARMANDO ADAME vs. AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC. (dba JBA HEADERS), ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board clarified that for Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) purposes, the commencement of temporary disability payments is the date the employer first mails a temporary disability indemnity check, not when EDD benefits begin. Furthermore, EDD benefits, even if reimbursed by the employer, do not count towards the 104-week cap on temporary disability payments. Consequently, the employer's liability for further temporary disability payments extends from the date of the first actual indemnity payment until October 6, 2007.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardArmando AdameAutomotive Engineered ProductsZenith Insurance CompanyLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)Temporary Total DisabilityTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment Development DepartmentUnemployment Compensation DisabilityHawkins v. Amberwood Products
References
Showing 1-10 of 104 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