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. ADJ11911958; ADJ11506199
Regular
Jun 24, 2025

JESUS RUBIO vs. CALPORTLAND COMPANY, MITSUI SUMITOMO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jesus Rubio's Petition for Removal against Calportland Company and Mitsui Sumitomo. The Board, after reviewing the WCJ's report, determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. An earlier petition filed by the applicant was deemed dismissed as the WCJ vacated the original order. The final decision upheld the denial of the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumbersWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyWCAB Rule 10955(d)rescinds decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ7484646
Regular
Apr 26, 2012

CHRISTINE SPIGNER vs. NEC ELECTRONICS, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Christine Spigner's Petition for Reconsideration in the case against NEC Electronics and Mitsui Sumitomo Marine Management. The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to be verified, a violation of Labor Code section 5902. This procedural defect rendered the petition invalid. The Board's decision was consistent with established precedent regarding unverified petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissalWCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7484646SpignerNEC ElectronicsMitsui Sumitomo Marine Management
References
2
Case No. ADJ8765139, ADJ9014068
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

JOEL VARGAS vs. ROMERO'S FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury. This denial was based on the applicant's lack of credibility and insufficient substantiating medical evidence, compounded by more credible employer witness testimony. The WCJ found the applicant's medical reporting was based on false, inaccurate, or incomplete histories, and the Appeals Board accorded great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings. Therefore, the petition was denied as the applicant failed to prove industrial causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ Credibility FindingSubstantial EvidenceMedical History AccuracyIndustrial Injury CausationLabor Code 3202Developing the RecordPreponderance of EvidenceNon-industrial CausesPrior Injuries
References
9
Case No. ADJ7754584
Regular
Jul 08, 2014

LORENA ESTRADA vs. IDS USA WEST INC.; MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, administered by MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an order dismissing Lorena Estrada's petition for reconsideration and denying her request for removal. The Board adopted the reasoning presented in the administrative law judge's report and recommendation. Specifically, the WCAB declined to accept the applicant's supplemental petition for reconsideration under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10848. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal were denied.

WCAABReconsiderationRemovalPetitionDismissedDeniedSupplemental PetitionAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
0
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of Winkelman v. Sumitomo Rubber USA

Claimant Ronald Winkelman sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018 while working for Sumitomo Rubber USA. After the second injury, he sought treatment and was found to have a temporary disability, leading to a note with lifting restrictions. When the employer couldn't accommodate, he was told not to return. He subsequently worked per diem jobs and filed for awards. The carrier suspended payments and alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, arguing claimant made false statements about his activities and employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding that no violation occurred and that claimant was entitled to reduced earnings, concluding that observed activities were not proven to exceed restrictions and sporadic assistance to his spouse was not an intentional misrepresentation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityReduced EarningsFalse StatementMisrepresentationIndependent Medical ExaminationSurveillance VideoLabor Market AttachmentAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
13
Case No. 84 Civ. 9155, 85 Civ. 3156
Regular Panel Decision

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc.

The Sumitomo parties moved to amend a prior judgment regarding willful patent infringement and to stay an injunction against their continued infringement of U.S. Patents 3,659,915 and 3,884,550. The District Court, presided over by Judge William C. Conner, denied both motions. The motion to amend was denied without prejudice, allowing renewal with further evidence regarding willfulness. The motion to stay the injunction, which would have permitted Sumitomo to fulfill existing contracts for optical fibers, was also denied. The court emphasized the public interest in enforcing valid patents and the lack of strong likelihood of Sumitomo's success on appeal, particularly given previous rulings against them.

Patent InfringementWillful InfringementInjunction StayAppellate ReviewOptical FibersTechnology LawCorporate LitigationIndustrial PropertyLegal ProcedureFederal Courts
References
14
Case No. ADJ8608413
Regular
Feb 11, 2014

ANTONIO MORALES CASILLAS vs. 7-ELEVEN, MITSUI MARINE & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, administered by MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Board adopted the judge's report, which emphasized the applicant's inconsistent statements regarding the injury mechanism and the lack of corroborating evidence. The judge found the applicant's testimony not persuasive, particularly in light of subsequent work performed after the alleged incident. Therefore, reconsideration was denied.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ7-Elevencashier clerklow back injurymedical evidenceinconsistent testimonycorroborating evidencecredibility
References
0
Case No. ADJ10387805
Regular
Oct 28, 2019

PARDEEP SINGH vs. 7 ELEVEN, MITSUI SUMITOMO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pardee Singh's Petition for Reconsideration. The petition was deemed untimely because it was filed on August 28, 2019, which was after the jurisdictional deadline of August 26, 2019. This deadline was calculated from the service date of an Order Allowing Costs on August 1, 2019. The WCAB clarified that for a petition to be timely, it must be *received* by the board within the statutory period, not merely mailed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCABWCJLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5903Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10507Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10508Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10845
References
4
Case No. ADJ9710957
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

DAVY NOEUN vs. MAGTEK, INC., MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a petition for removal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board also noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is ultimately issued. The WCAB further admonished the petitioner's counsel for disparaging remarks made in the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportDisrespectful RemarksDenied
References
2
Case No. ADJ4639861 (LAO 0771268)
Regular
Apr 30, 2012

JEANETTE LEBLANC vs. LUMONICS CORPORATION, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's challenge to the awarded period of temporary disability. The original award found the applicant continuously temporarily disabled from August 27, 1998, to October 29, 2007. However, the Board noted the Agreed Medical Examiner indicated the applicant reached permanent and stationary status at various times during this period. Consequently, the Board deferred the determination of the temporary disability period, remanding it to the WCJ to specifically identify and award indemnity for periods of actual temporary disability supported by medical evidence. The determination of the Employment Development Department's lien was also deferred pending this resolution.

ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent and Stationary StatusVocational TrainingArthroscopic SurgeryKnee ReplacementLumbar Spine
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 32 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