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. ADJ9794866, ADJ9794864
Regular
Jun 02, 2015

MARINA MORFIN vs. SF GREEN CLEAN, LLC, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, PRO CENTURY INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denies Marina Morfin's petition for removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the Board found was not met. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, concluding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a decision adverse to the applicant is issued. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyADJ9794866ADJ9794864SF Green Clean
References
2
Case No. ADJ14904382
Regular
Apr 16, 2025

MARIA MORFIN vs. BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION DBA EL SUPER MARKET, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered and denied Maria Morfin's Petition for Removal against Bodega Latina Corporation DBA El Super Market and Safety National Insurance Company. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted, requiring substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and inadequacy of reconsideration as a remedy. The WCAB was not persuaded by the petitioner's arguments. Subsequently, the Board issued an order to correct a clerical error in the initial decision, specifically the omission of the service date, which was corrected to April 11, 2025.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationClerical ErrorDate of ServiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyDenying Removal
References
4
Case No. ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant sought removal from a WCJ's order stipulating to two Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs), alleging the WCJ "forced" the agreement. Applicant's attorney and the WCJ countered that defense counsel had agreed to and proposed the AMEs, with the WCJ merely documenting the stipulation. The Appeals Board denied removal as defendant showed no prejudice, but initiated its own removal to address the attorney's alleged false statements and vexatious tactics. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 on the defendant and its attorneys for filing a frivolous petition containing misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorsWCJSanctionsBad Faith TacticsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayStipulationMisrepresentation of Facts
References
1
Case No. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular
Sep 16, 2016

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration and dismissed a petition for removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the employer is liable for treatment of a non-industrial condition if it is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. The petition for removal was dismissed because reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code 4600medical treatmentcure or relievenon-industrial conditioncompensable consequenceAppeals Board Rule 10843final order
References
6
Case No. ADJ4406096
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

JOSE A. MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

Defendant White Memorial Medical Center sought removal to rescind an order continuing the case for trial due to an amended date of injury and insufficient discovery. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and reconsideration is deemed an adequate remedy for any future adverse decision. Consequently, the matter will proceed to a rescheduled trial.

Petition for RemovalAmended Date of InjuryDiscoverySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJRescind OrderSchedule Trial
References
2
Case No. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular
Apr 27, 2017

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel in the California Court of Appeal. The court remanded the matter for supplemental fees after the defendant's unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Review. While applicant's attorney sought $11,480.00 in fees, the Board found this excessive and awarded $8,000.00 based on a review of the appellate work and the contentious history of the litigation. The Board also awarded the requested costs of $67.58, totaling $8,067.58 in additional appellate attorney's fees and costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesItemization of Attorney's FeesExcessive Fee RequestReasonable Fee DeterminationCase-by-Case Basis
References
1
Showing 1-6 of 6 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