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. ADJ9202952
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

MARIA LOPEZ vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSON SERVICES, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of an Order Vacating, finding the order was not a final decision. However, it granted the defendant's Petition for Removal of that same Order Vacating, deeming it untimely under WCAB Rule 10859. Consequently, the WCAB vacated the Order Vacating, restoring the original July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact. The WCAB also dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Removal, affirming the July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact which held the lien claimant bound by prior causation findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder VacatingFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmFinal Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
10
Case No. ADJ6876456
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

MARILYN BROWN vs. COLLECTCORP CORPORATION, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss. The WCAB also dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal as untimely, as it was filed more than 20 days after the order it challenged. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for removal. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code $\S 5405$JurisdictionDue ProcessFinal OrderTimelinessCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
5
Case No. ADJ1818368 (VNO 0523027) ADJ3597904 (VNO 0529502)
Regular
Nov 14, 2011

EMILIA OLGUIN vs. ESIS DIVISION OF ACE/USA INSURANCE; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition. The defendant argued that the WCJ's order to pay the EDD lien would result in undue enrichment due to prior payments, but the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant was on notice of the EDD's lien and paid benefits at its own peril. The applicant's petition was dismissed as untimely. The WCAB denied the defendant's petition, finding no error in the original award ordering payment of the EDD lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineElbowsCumulative TraumaPsychological SystemPermanent DisabilityApportionmentEDD LienPetition for Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. ADJ6849643
Regular
May 20, 2013

CHARLES MALINOWSKI vs. HSM ELECTRONIC PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., SPECIALTY RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order setting the case for trial and closing discovery, as such procedural orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion, finding the defendant's petition frivolous and indicative of bad faith tactics intended to delay proceedings. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction the defendant and its counsel jointly and severally, up to $1,500, for their improper procedural filing. The matter will proceed with trial pending the resolution of the sanctions issue.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSanctionBad FaithFrivolousLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 Section 10561Interlocutory OrderVocational Rehabilitation Expert
References
9
Case No. ADJ3344826
Regular
Nov 09, 2010

RONALD FRYER vs. CORNUCOPIA COMMUNITY MARKET, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an order to authorize medical treatment and pay bills, as well as dismissing the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the WCJ erred in ordering reimbursement for bills not following Utilization Review, while the applicant claimed further wrongdoing and sought an award of benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition, and dismissed the applicant's petition as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Treatment AuthorizationPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical Provider NetworkGym MembershipIndustrial InjuryUtilization ReviewApplicant
References
2
Case No. ADJ7226408
Regular
Feb 16, 2012

Robert Thompson vs. VONS, A SAFEWAY COMPANY

Defendant Vons sought removal and reconsideration of a WCJ's order authorizing applicant's attorney to accept $3,000 for a diminished future earning capacity expert. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding the order interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights, nor was defendant directly aggrieved. The petition for removal was also dismissed as untimely regarding the reservation of jurisdiction in a prior award and because defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Ultimately, both the Petition for Removal and Petition for Reconsideration were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC ExpertOgilvie IssueJurisdiction ReservedInterlocutory Order
References
7
Case No. SFO 0489072
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

Joseph Royse vs. Heartworks Studios, LLC, DC3-E, LLLP, Lexington Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition to remove the stay on proceedings against co-defendants Heartworks Studios and DC3-E, affirming the WCJ's decision. However, the Board granted Lexington Insurance Company's petition to remove the applicant's dismissal of Lexington and Esther Phelps, reversing that order and reinstating Lexington as a party due to its admitted liability and significant benefit payments. The Board also dismissed Lexington's petition for reconsideration as the dismissal order was not final.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPriority ConferenceStay of ProceedingsSuperior Court JurisdictionCivil ActionExclusive Remedy DefenseUninsured EmployersExpedited Hearing
References
1
Case No. ADJ3736897 (RIV 0044021)
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

TERESA BOLTON vs. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petitions for removal, finding the defendant's petition for reconsideration untimely. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order vacating a prior minute order that required the defendant to pay $300 to the lien claimant. Consequently, the November 27, 2013 minute order, requiring the defendant to pay the costs, was reinstated. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCJ AuthorityMinute OrderLien ClaimantCosts AwardRescinded OrderReinstated OrderAppeals Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 30,462 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