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. ADJ9143778 ADJ9845461 ADJ9845465 ADJ9143777
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

IGNACIO MOLINA vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Ignacio Molina's Petition for Reconsideration because it failed to meet statutory requirements for specificity and legal support. Molina sought reconsideration based on his employer's alleged failure to provide medical treatment for his left eye. However, his petition did not challenge the specific findings of the previous decision nor provide detailed legal grounds. The Board advised Molina that he could pursue medical treatment issues by filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalWCJJoint Findings of FactOrders and Opinion on DecisionLabor Code section 5902WCAB Rule 10842(a)Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10846
References
Case No. ADJ8091502
Regular
Nov 19, 2018

ENRIQUE VIZCAINO CONTRERAS vs. SAUL A. MOLINA-LUNA dba MOLINA'S AUTOMOTIVE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

This case involves a worker's compensation claim where the applicant alleged injury while working as a mechanic for Molina's Automotive. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee, based primarily on the employer's lack of control over the details of the work. Because the applicant was not found to be an employee, the WCAB did not address whether the incident caused a compensable injury.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusControl TestSecondary IndiciaBorello FactorsSubcontracting WorkCompensable InjuryNeed for Medical TreatmentDisabilityWCJ Credibility Determination
References
Case No. ADJ2593762 (SAC 0363364)
Regular
Jul 13, 2012

RICHARD HODGE vs. DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision to provide psychiatric treatment. Even if the need for psychiatric treatment stems from a potentially non-compensable psychiatric injury, the employer remains liable if the treatment is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of a compensable industrial injury. In this case, the applicant's psychiatric treatment was deemed necessary to address cognitive impairment caused by a compensable traumatic brain injury. Therefore, the employer is liable for this treatment under established case law, regardless of the nuances of the six-month employment rule.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary exceptionsix-month employment rulemedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600reasonably requiredcure or relievenon-compensable injurypsychiatric treatmenttraumatic brain injury
References
Case No. ADJ8572033
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

NELLY MOLINA vs. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S

This case involves a lien claim by Industrial Healthcare for medical services provided to applicant Nelly Molina from November 6, 2012, to September 10, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of an order dismissing the lien, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was untimely. The WCAB ruled that because the last date of service (September 10, 2013) was after July 1, 2013, the 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a) applied, making the lien filed on September 2, 2015, tardy. A dissenting opinion argued that continuous services provided both before and after July 1, 2013, should be subject to the three-year statute of limitations, allowing for a single lien filing.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimreconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lienworkers' compensation administrative law judgeIndustrial HealthcareInnovative Medical ManagementMacy's Corporate Servicescontinuous treatment
References
Case No. ADJ7464285
Regular
Feb 01, 2017

VICTOR MOLINA vs. WILLIE LOPEZ d/b/a WILFRED MANAGEMENT and SUNSET PACIFIC, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Molina v. Lopez*, the defendant requested reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board granted reconsideration, finding it necessary to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. This allows for a more complete understanding of the record and a just decision. All future filings related to the petition must be directed to the Board's San Francisco office, not district offices or e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMS
References
Case No. ADJ6843753
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

REGLO MOLINA vs. WORKFORCE STAFFING dba GENEVA STAFFING and TOWER GROUP COMPANIES (Formerly SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE/SUA) Administered By INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

In *Molina v. Workforce Staffing*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal. The Board adopted and incorporated the administrative law judge's report as the basis for this denial. The specific reasons for the denial are detailed in that incorporated report. The order was served on July 3, 2012.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkforce StaffingGeneva StaffingTower Group CompaniesSpecialty Underwriters AllianceSUAIntercare Holdings Insurance ServicesADJ6843753Marina del Rey
References
Case No. ADJ1236919
Regular
Mar 26, 2009

MIKE H. FORREST vs. APPLE CONTRACTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reimbursement for psychiatric treatment provided to an applicant whose employment duration precluded a valid industrial psychiatric injury claim. The applicant's orthopedic injury was accepted, and treatment for his psyche was initially authorized by the defendant. However, the Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The denial was based on the applicant not meeting the six-month employment requirement for psychiatric claims under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Furthermore, the psychiatric treatment was not deemed a necessary pre-condition to treating the industrial orthopedic injury, and the lien claimant failed to establish the elements of estoppel against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDisallowed LienPsychiatric TreatmentIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment Requirement
References
Case No. ADJ6552646
Regular
Mar 26, 2014

CYNTHIA MOLINA vs. NORDSTROM, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling that held the applicant responsible for medical bills incurred outside Nordstrom's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCAB determined that a "hold-harmless" clause in a stipulated award had no legal effect, as employers cannot assign their statutory duty to provide medical treatment. Lien claimants are subject to the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction and can only recover from the employer under Labor Code section 4600 if the employer neglected to provide treatment. For self-procured treatment under section 4605, the employee is personally liable, and providers must pursue collection in civil court, not through WCAB liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNordstrom Inc.Medical Provider NetworkStipulations with Request for AwardLabor Code Section 3751(b)Labor Code Section 4605Hold-Harmless ClauseLien ClaimsSelf-Procured TreatmentExclusive Jurisdiction
References
Case No. ADJ7331340
Regular
Sep 07, 2012

JAKE VU vs. MOLINA HEALTH CARE CENTER, TRAVELERS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order dismissing his workers' compensation case. The applicant claimed he did not understand he was dismissing his case when he signed the dismissal order on the same day he dismissed his attorney. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely, as it was filed over three months after the dismissal order was served. While the petition was dismissed, the Board advised the applicant that he could file a new application for adjudication of claim within the statutory period if he wished to pursue his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIn pro perNotice of Dismissal of Attorneyuntimely petitionjurisdictionLabor CodeInformation and Assistance OfficeApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
Case No. ADJ850699 (LAO 0861491)
Regular
Nov 07, 2008

Sigfredo Molina vs. Jeans of America, Everest National Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's Supplemental Findings and Orders. The Board found no error in the Judge proceeding with the hearing and issuing an award despite the defendant's repeated failure to appear at trial, finding no good cause was shown for their absence. The defendant's arguments regarding lack of due process and procedural errors were rejected as the Judge followed proper procedures by providing notice and opportunity to object after the defendant's non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental FindingsTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLien ClaimsSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentSummary of Evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 22 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