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. ADJ9098975
Regular
May 16, 2025

SHELLY REESE vs. COUNTY OF KERN, KERN COUNTY SHERIFF, SHERIFF'S RESERVE ASSOCIATION, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Shelly Reese, a reserve deputy for the County of Kern, was injured during a motocross demonstration at the 2013 Stampede Days, an annual fundraising event for the Sheriff's Department. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine if Reese was an employee under the Workers' Compensation Act. The WCAB found that Reese established a presumption of employment due to receiving remuneration in the form of training and uniforms, therefore overriding the public agency volunteer exclusion. Concluding she was performing peace officer duties, the Board rescinded the prior finding of her as a professional athlete and reclassified her employment as a Peace Officer, Occupational Group Number 490.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationReserve DeputyStampede DaysMotocross DemonstrationProfessional AthletePeace OfficerLabor Code Sections 335133573352(a)(9)
References
Case No. ADJ1856849
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

ROGELIO MERLOS vs. AJ SLENDERS DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) notice indicates they are reconsidering a prior ruling that excluded defendant's exhibits A through M as irrelevant. The WCAB believes these exhibits may be relevant to the issues presented at trial. Absent timely written objection demonstrating good cause, these exhibits will be admitted into evidence. This decision will inform the final determination on the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationExhibits A through MWCJNotice of Intention to Admit EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeGood CauseWritten ObjectionDemonstration of Good CauseService of Notice
References
Case No. ADJ8881091
Regular
Mar 23, 2017

ARTURO JIMENEZ vs. SANTA ANA COUNTRY CLUB, ALLIANCE RESOLUTION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final interlocutory order. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders that determine substantive rights or threshold issues. Removal is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases with demonstrable immediate harm, which was not established here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive right or liabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory decisionprocedural ordersevidentiary issuesextraordinary remedy
References
Case No. ADJ9498698 ADJ9537832
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

RAFEEK RAHEEM vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the prior decision was not a "final" order as it only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted by the circumstances. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the denial of removal, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. The Board concluded the issuance of a Qualified Medical Evaluator panel did not cause any demonstrated harm or prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive right or liabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory procedural decisionevidentiary decisionextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ591293 (GRO 0031424) ADJ3541062 (GRO 0031102)
Regular
Oct 16, 2014

GENE FREITAS vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an applicant's appeal challenging his permanent disability rating. The applicant argued his vocational expert demonstrated 100% disability, seeking to rebut the standard 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the initial findings, holding the applicant failed to prove his industrial injury was the sole cause of his inability to participate in rehabilitation. The WCAB emphasized that factors like lack of education or general aptitude, rather than solely the industrial injury, must be demonstrably absent for a successful rebuttal under *LeBoeuf* principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGene FreitasThe Kroger CompanyRalphs Grocery CompanySEDGWICK CMSOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleVocational ExpertOgilvie
References
Case No. ADJ7582791
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

DAVID DANLEY vs. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The applicant, David Danley, who sustained a 100% permanent and total disability, sought to increase his permanent disability indemnity rate beyond the stipulated $410.00 weekly. He argued his recently completed Ph.D. demonstrated an increased earning capacity pursuant to Labor Code § 4453(c)(4), which should be considered despite lower actual earnings at the time of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the applicant failed to provide specific, demonstrable evidence of a concrete job that would have yielded higher earnings. The Board concluded that potential future earnings based on education are too speculative unless supported by specific employment opportunities.

Labor Code section 4453(c)(4)permanent and total disabilityearning capacitypermanent disability paymentaverage weekly earningsstatutory ratesvocational consulting servicesstipulationsreopened recorddissenting opinion
References
Case No. ADJ10759952
Regular
Aug 16, 2018

Sharon Kurtz vs. Nichols & Associates, Ohio Security Insurance Company

The WCAB granted reconsideration of a WCJ's award regarding applicant Sharon Kurtz's right shoulder injury. Defendants argued the WCJ improperly excluded prior injury evidence, overlooked a post-termination filing issue, and lacked evidence for the temporary disability period. While affirming the injury finding, the Board modified the temporary disability period to January 4, 2016, to May 10, 2016, based on evidence of continued work. The Board adopted the WCJ's report in its decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeTeam Lead DemonstratorPrior InjuriesPost-Termination ClaimTemporary DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ13111007
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

CHARLES MISERENDINO vs. CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC.; QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE

Applicant filed a petition for removal from an order taking the matter off calendar, issued on September 10, 2024, by the WCJ. Applicant contended that the issue of additional panels was ripe for adjudication. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding that the WCJ's order violated due process by being issued without creating a record or explaining the need for further development, thus constituting irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board rescinded the September 10, 2024 order and returned the matter to the trial level to create a record, refraining from making a judgment on the warrant for additional panels without a formal record.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Matter Off CalendarAdjudicationDue Process ViolationIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceWCJ ReportRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelCreate Record
References
Case No. MON 0351321 MON 0352690 MON 0353775
Regular
Aug 22, 2008

ROBERT ORNELAS vs. WOODS EQUIPMENT, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The petition for removal is denied because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The issues for adjudication do not involve a finding of injury.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5710feesstop paymentdeposition feescosts and sanctionsdilatory practicesdisqualification of judgesubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ486464
Regular
Dec 16, 2009

LINDA CASTILLO vs. FIRST STUDENT, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., BROADSPIRE

The petition for removal is denied because the applicant did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The petition is not dismissed despite applicant's failure to fully comply with Rule 10850.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalOrder to Quashsubpoenaproof of serviceRule 10850Rule 10505verified petitionindustrial injurynerves
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,179 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