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. ADJ8503725
Regular
Jan 09, 2017

DAVID LEZCHUK (Deceased), MELISSA LEZCHUK, Guardian ad Litem for MADISON GRACE LEZCHUK, minor vs. CAL FIRE—DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's petition, upholding the finding that Madison Lezchuk, the minor dependent, is entitled to an additional death benefit of $53,000. This additional benefit is to be placed in a trust due to the applicant's spending habits and inability to manage funds, ensuring protection of Madison's future interests. The WCAB affirmed that the "good cause" exception under Labor Code section 4704 allows for such awards despite the applicant's receipt of a CALPERS Special Death Benefit.

CALPERSSpecial Death BenefitLabor Code section 4707Labor Code section 4704good causeminor dependentdeath benefitGuardian ad Litemindustrial injuryWCJ discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Goffredo v. City of New York

The petitioner sought to serve a late notice of claim after developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to exposure at the World Trade Center site between 2001 and 2002. The Supreme Court initially denied the application based on a technical affidavit defect and later denied a renewed application as untimely, citing the expiration of the one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the claim accrued in December 2001 when symptoms manifested, not in February 2003 with the formal diagnosis. The majority rejected the argument that the renewed motion should relate back to the original or that the court's delay in decision-making warranted a different outcome. A dissenting opinion argued for reversal, asserting the initial application was timely, the technical defect minor, and the court's delay and invitation to renew should compel consideration on the merits.

Late Notice of ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorld Trade Center ExposureChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAccrual DateProcedural DefectsMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionGeneral Municipal Law
References
25
Case No. ADJ7542088
Regular
Jun 25, 2012

TIMOTHY OAKES vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant City of Sacramento's petition for reconsideration. Simultaneously, the Board granted the applicant Timothy Oakes' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the original decision, with a minor amendment changing Finding of Fact No. 6 to state that the applicant's condition does not require further medical care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportDecision After ReconsiderationFinding of Factmedical care
References
0
Case No. ADJ8219210
Regular
Oct 19, 2012

PETE MINOR vs. BP AMERICA, INC., EMPLOYERS SELF-INSURANCE SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied BP America's petition for reconsideration of a prior award to applicant Pete Minor. The WCAB affirmed the judge's findings of industrial injury to Minor's shoulders and awarded benefits, including temporary disability, attorney fees, and future medical treatment. The Board also upheld the judge's finding of unreasonable delay in payment of benefits, which resulted in a 25% increase under Labor Code section 5814. The defendant's petition was criticized for misrepresenting material evidence and failing to disclose crucial facts regarding the injury AOE/COE.

AOE/COELabor Code section 5814unreasonable delaymedical treatmenttemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical treatmentPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationsanctionsmisleading petition
References
7
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. VNO 0438915
Regular
Oct 23, 2008

Applicant vs. University of Southern California

This case concerns an applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying injury claims against the University of Southern California (USC). The applicant alleged a physical altercation with his supervisor, Mr. Pickering, during a meeting on September 20, 2001, which he claims caused various injuries. However, the WCJ found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony and failure to report the incident promptly. The WCJ relied on testimony from witnesses who stated Mr. Pickering merely touched the applicant's shoulders and noted the applicant's history of prior injuries and medical issues not fully disclosed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiological Safety Specialistspecific injuryanimositycredibility issuesshoulder touchingprior injurieshypertension
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Matter of Zaim R.

Zaim R., a minor, filed a motion in Family Court, Orange County, seeking a finding of eligibility for long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect, and/or abandonment to obtain special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). Zaim, represented by counsel, entered the U.S. illegally and resides with his great uncle, who was previously appointed his guardian. The court, presided over by Judge Carol S. Klein, declined jurisdiction, finding that it lacked authority to intervene in federal immigration proceedings, especially since removal proceedings commenced before the guardianship was established. The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction, citing similar cases, and dismissed the application, noting that the relief sought was outside its scope and that SIJS findings should be made by the immigration court.

Immigration LawSpecial Immigrant Juvenile StatusFamily Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionGuardianship ProceedingsChild WelfareUnaccompanied MinorsDeportationLong-term Foster Care EligibilityJudicial Authority
References
7
Case No. ADJ6958416
Regular
May 19, 2011

Norma Zell vs. ALAMEDA COUNTY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's first petition for reconsideration, amending the original award to increase her permanent disability rating from 20% to 24% based on corrected medical calculations. The Board denied the applicant's second petition for reconsideration regarding her left wrist injury, adopting the judge's reasoning that it was not a compensable industrial injury. The original finding of a cumulative industrial injury to the right wrist during her employment as a deputy sheriff was affirmed. The award was amended to reflect the 24% permanent disability rating and adjusted attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Industrial InjuryRight Wrist InjuryDeputy SheriffPermanent Disability RatingAMA GuideWhole Person ImpairmentPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ6729105
Regular
Sep 16, 2009

, ## Applicant, vs. , ## Defendant(s).

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a ruling that utilization review for the applicant's shoulder surgery was timely. The applicant argued she did not receive the denial letter within the required timeframe, but the Board found that the denial was properly sent to the treating physician and carbon-copied to the applicant within the statutory period. The Board clarified that WCAB Rule 10505(d) regarding official address records did not apply at the time of the denial because no claim application was yet filed. Therefore, the carrier's obligation was to communicate the denial in writing within the specified time, which they did.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCadbury SchweppesGallagher Bassett ServicesUtilization ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationApplication for Adjudication of ClaimWCAB Rule 10505(d)Labor Code Section 4610ArthroscopyBiceps Tenodesis
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,152 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