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. ADJ9526304
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

GLADYS MELENDEZ vs. MYS CORPORATION/KRYSTAL KLEEN, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Citywide Scanning Service, finding that the defendant waived their right to object to the reasonableness and necessity of charges by failing to file a timely objection. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the trial level for a determination of reasonable fees for all services. This decision hinged on the interpretation of statutes regarding timely objections to medical-legal expenses. The failure to object within the statutory period precludes defendants from contesting reasonableness and necessity and may expose them to penalties.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJExpress Records ManagementPrime Medical ResourcesEmployers' CompensationHollywood Presbyterian Medical CenterClinical Medica San MiguelIndependent Bill Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ6884625
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

JASON PETERSON, KIRSTIE MCCRAINE-PETERSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the death of Jason Peterson, a correctional officer, from a pulmonary embolism after injuring his calf in a kickboxing class. The applicant, his widow, claimed the injury and death were work-related, arguing the kickboxing class was a reasonable expectancy of employment due to a general fitness requirement and incentive program. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the claim barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) because the decedent's belief that kickboxing was required was not objectively reasonable, as mere general assertions of fitness expectations are insufficient. Commissioner Brass dissented, believing the decedent's participation was both subjectively and objectively reasonable given its likely benefit to his job performance as a correctional officer.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Pulmonary EmbolismCorrectional OfficerKickboxingOff-duty Recreational ActivityReasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective ReasonablenessEzzy testCity of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. ADJ8334555
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. BRYAN MIMAKI dba PACIFIC RIMS, PALMS; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether a knee injury sustained by an employee, Jose Hernandez, while playing basketball on company premises during lunch is compensable. The defendant argued the injury did not arise out of employment, as it stemmed from voluntary participation in an athletic activity not required by the employer. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the injury was industrial. The majority found the employee's subjective belief of employer expectation was objectively reasonable, given the employer provided a court and balls and supervisors encouraged participation. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing the applicant failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable belief of employer expectation, as he could opt out and faced no repercussions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryRight KneeField WorkerBasketball GameOff-Duty Recreational ActivityLabor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Reasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective Reasonableness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ms. B. v. Mr. K.

Mr. K. filed a petition seeking a downward modification of child support after losing his job at IBM and taking a lower-paying position. Hearing Examiner Brinnier denied the modification, finding Mr. K. failed to prove his income reduction was involuntary. Mr. K. objected, arguing his departure from IBM under an 'individual transition option' was reasonable given his declining performance and the company's downsizing. The court reviewed the objections and determined that Mr. K.'s decision to leave IBM was reasonable under the circumstances. The court found that the prior support order of $131 per week should continue during the period covered by Mr. K.'s IBM lump-sum buyout. The case is remanded to the Hearing Examiner to ascertain Mr. K.'s income from Fitness Unlimited and to chart the fluctuations in the support order.

Child Support ModificationDownward ModificationVoluntary TerminationInvoluntary TerminationChild Support Standards ActFamily Court ActLump-Sum PaymentIncome CalculationFinancial AffidavitEmployment Change
References
0
Case No. ADJ1952983
Regular
Mar 15, 2018

JUAN RIVERA vs. IMPORT EXPORT CACTUS, STATE COMPENSAITON INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that deemed them to have waived objections to a specific invoice from lien claimant Scandoc Imaging. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the defendant's objection, if any, was untimely, having been filed approximately four years after the invoice was submitted. California regulations require objections to medical-legal billings within 60 days to avoid waiver. Therefore, the defendant waived their objections to the reasonableness of the services and charges for invoice #234447-3.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderslien claimantinvoice objectionwaiver of objectionreasonableness of servicesLabor Code section 4622Scandoc ImagingImport Export Cactus
References
2
Case No. ADJ591894 (POM 0283231) ADJ4070161 (VNO 0521347) ADJ4114324 (VNO 0513026)
Regular
Dec 02, 2019

JESUS CARDOSO vs. VARGAS FURNITURE MANUFACTURE, a CA CORPORATION, RACHEL MONTOYA, ALFONSO MONTOYA, ARTHUR PAUL VILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order approving a compromise and release for an uninsured employer. The Board found that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) improperly overruled the substantial shareholders' objection without addressing its merits or providing reasons. Under Labor Code section 3715(e), uninsured employers have a right to object to compromise and release agreements and have their objections considered. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to create an adequate record and for the WCJ to rule on the objection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJesus CardosoVargas Furniture ManufactureState Compensation Insurance FundUninsured Employers FundUEBTFCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 3715(e)Notice of Intent
References
1
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. ADJ576200
Regular
Dec 01, 2011

ROBIN DVORKIN vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WORK COMP

This case involves a dispute over the timeliness of an applicant's objection to a utilization review (UR) denial of prescribed medications for an industrial injury. The defendant, County of Sacramento, argued the applicant failed to object within the statutory twenty-day period. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's finding that the applicant's objection was timely. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning and denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Utilization ReviewNon-certificationTreating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerLabor Code section 4062Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ Report and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-Insured
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,671 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