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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
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
Case No. ADJ9787224, ADJ10307321
Regular
Jul 02, 2019

CAROLYN LANGLEY vs. 101 CASINO, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award of permanent and total disability for Carolyn Langley against 101 Casino. The Board found the PQME's opinion substantial evidence supporting a combined award for two distinct industrial injuries because the physician could not reasonably apportion permanent disability between them. This conclusion aligns with case law allowing combined awards in limited circumstances where apportionment is medically speculative. The Board also found the WCJ correctly applied apportionment for a prior specific injury to the current cumulative trauma award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCarolyn Langley101 CasinoMitsui Sumitomo Marine ManagementADJ9787224ADJ10307321ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardCasino Card DealerIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8291290
Regular
Sep 01, 2012

NELSON FUNES vs. BOA SUNSET, LLC, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT (USA), INC.

This case concerns a Petition for Removal filed by Nelson Funes against BOA Sunset, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge. The WCAB determined the petition was moot and therefore dismissed it, declining to award sanctions.

Petition for RemovalDismissedMootSanctionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportApplicantDefendantAdministrationMitsui Sumitomo Marine Management
References
Case No. ADJ4689210 (VNO 0544832) ADJ6906409 ADJ7469887
Regular
Sep 20, 2019

Donald Yeager vs. CALPORTLAND COMPANY, MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE USA, INC., administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Applicant sought removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge after the judge ordered trial and denied reassignment. However, the parties had already entered into and received approval for three Compromise and Release agreements settling all claimed injuries. The Appeals Board found these settlement agreements rendered the Applicant's petitions moot. Therefore, the Board dismissed both the Petition for Disqualification and the Petitions for Removal.

Petitions for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseOrders Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Rescinding Orders Approving Compromise and ReleaseReconsideration UnitJurisdictionMoot IssuesWCJ GlassWCJ Morgan
References
Case No. VNO 395339
Regular
Aug 09, 2007

ARMANDO GUTIERREZ vs. TEMP STAR SERVICES, CAITAC, TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a worker injured while employed by both a general employer (Temp Star) and a special employer (Caitac). The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), responsible for the insolvent insurer of the general employer, sought dismissal, arguing the special employer's insurer (Tokio Marine) provided "other insurance." The Appeals Board found Tokio Marine's policy constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9) because there was insufficient evidence that it was not intended to cover special employees. Consequently, CIGA was dismissed as a defendant.

CIGATokio Marine ManagementSpecial employerGeneral employerCovered claimsOther insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1(c)(9)LiquidationJoint and several liabilityWorkers' compensation policy
References
Case No. LAO 0803921
Regular
Mar 26, 2008

Amelia Acosta vs. Alpine Electronics of America, Mitsui Sumitomo Marine Management, Tokio Marine Management, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order for attorney fees against the defendants. The Board found that the administrative law judge failed to provide the defendants with proper due process and that the circumstances warranted finding the imposition of sanctions unjust. Consequently, the petition for removal was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for Attorney FeesWCJLien ClaimantCompromise & ReleaseIndustrial InjuryDue ProcessArbitrary and Capricious
References
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
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
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,388 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