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. ADJ4343203
Regular
Feb 06, 2015

PEDRO CABALLERO (DECEASED) vs. CONTINENTAL PUMPING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a deceased applicant whose death was determined by an Agreed Medical Evaluator to be unrelated to his industrial injury. The defendant sought dismissal of the claim, but the WCJ initially included a provision requiring all liens to be resolved first. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no statutory basis to delay dismissal pending lien resolution, especially since lien claimants were properly served and did not object. The Board amended the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, removing the lien resolution requirement, and ordered the Application for Adjudication of Claim dismissed.

Petition for RemovalSkeletal PetitionNotice of Intent to DismissAgreed Medical EvaluatorDismissal for Failure to ProsecuteLien ClaimantsApplication for Adjudication of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCause of Death
References
0
Case No. ADJ16042609, ADJ13305672, ADJ13956136, ADJ10174349, ADJ10876442
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

JESSE STONE ORDONAZ vs. BURGER KING STEVENSON RESTAURANTS, WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, CALIFORNIA FOOD MANAGEMENT, LLC, MITSUI SUMITOMO

The applicant, Jesse Stone Ordonaz, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a petition for removal after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCJ) rejected their applications for adjudication. The rejection was based on the applicant's failure to comply with a pre-filing order requiring permission to file new applications. The applicant alleged fraud in a prior Compromise and Release and sought to relitigate claims. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and did not abide by the vexatious litigant order.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderPetition for removalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Rejecting Applications for AdjudicationCompromise and ReleaseFraudRelitigationWCJSubstantial prejudice
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1988

In re Melissa R.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate seven children as neglected. The investigation stemmed from a report to the State Central Register of Alleged Child Abuse or Maltreatment. Following a fact-finding hearing, the children were found neglected due to issues like academic struggles, chaotic home conditions, excessive corporal punishment, and a lack of care from the parents. The respondents appealed, contending that much of the proof was uncorroborated hearsay and that a "diligent plan" was not provided, but these arguments were rejected by the court. The order was affirmed.

neglectchild abusecorporal punishmentFamily Court ActSocial Services LawOtsego Countyappealtemporary removalcustodyfact-finding hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rebecca X.

This case involves appeals from six Family Court orders that adjudicated Rebecca X., Carissa Y., and Brittany Y. as abused and/or neglected children. Brittany Y. accused the respondent (her mother's boyfriend) of sexual abuse, which was corroborated by medical examinations and social worker assessments despite attempts by her mother and the respondent to influence her statements. The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and derivative neglect for her sisters. The respondent was deemed a legally responsible person due to his cohabitation and disciplinary role. The appellate court affirmed all orders, concluding that Brittany's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated, the respondent was properly identified as legally responsible, and the findings of derivative neglect were amply supported. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected.

Sexual abuseChild neglectCorroborated testimonyDerivative findingsParental dutyMedical evidenceWitness intimidationFamily Court proceedingsAppellant rightsAbuse adjudication
References
13
Case No. ADJ10069789 MF ADJ10069817 ADJ10069939
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

ANTHONY SMITH vs. TW TRANSPORTATION

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant was hired in California but signed an employment contract with a choice-of-law clause selecting Washington law and forum. The WCAB granted reconsideration, reversing the administrative law judge's prior order to adjudicate in Washington. The Board found that hiring in California is a sufficient connection to establish WCAB jurisdiction, superseding the choice-of-law clause due to California's strong public policy interest in workers' compensation claims. Therefore, the applicant's claims will be adjudicated in California.

WCABJurisdictionLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Contract of HireForum Selection ClauseChoice of Law ProvisionReconsiderationFindings of FactMcKinley v. Arizona CardinalsPalma
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chant v. Filippelli

The petitioner appealed an order from the Family Court of Warren County, which had dismissed their application to modify a prior custody order regarding their daughter, born in 1991. The Family Court had found no substantial change in circumstances to warrant a modification, deeming it in the child's best interest to remain in the respondent's custody. The appellate court affirmed this decision, deferring to the Family Court's assessment of testimony and witness credibility. The court noted the child's positive development under the existing custody arrangement and rejected the petitioner's arguments concerning a school counselor's testimony versus a psychiatric social worker's recommendation, as well as the child's separation from a half-sibling.

CustodyVisitationChild's Best InterestFamily LawCustody ModificationAppellate ReviewParental FitnessChange of CircumstancesWarren County
References
9
Case No. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

DONALD K. SMITH vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. ADJ10239649
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

, Applicant, vs. , Defendants.

The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed over twenty days after the Order Approving Compromise and Release. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level to determine if the applicant's claims of fraud regarding his employer's identity and insurance coverage constitute good cause to set aside the original settlement order. The applicant alleged he was misled into settling based on false information about his employer's insurance status. The Board acknowledges these allegations, if proven, could justify setting aside the order.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseuntimelyFraudSet Aside OrderJoinderDeclarative JudgmentGood CauseInequitableMistake
References
13
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
4
Showing 1-10 of 28,166 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