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. ADJ347577
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, ODIE PRETTYMAN, PACIFIC BELL, CAMBRIDGE SACRAMENTO, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT, SEDGWICK CIGA GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration regarding a penalty on delayed temporary disability payments. The WCJ had previously ordered Pacific Bell to pay the overdue temporary disability benefits and deferred the penalty issue. Pacific Bell argued the penalty claim was resolved under Labor Code §5814(c) upon payment, but the Board found no merit in this argument. The matter is returned to the trial level for resolution of the applicant's attorney fees related to the penalty under Labor Code §5814.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5814.5Attorneys' FeesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Pacific BellTemporary Disability IndemnityPenaltiesInterestAward
References
Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
Case No. ADJ9351345
Regular
Jul 05, 2016

WILLIAM YONEMITSU vs. PACIFIC BELL TELPHONE COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Pacific Bell sought reconsideration of a decision awarding applicant cumulative injury benefits and denying the employer's claim for "excess credit." The defendant argued it was entitled to credit for payments made under a disability plan, citing relevant case law. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the trial judge that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. This failure was primarily due to not presenting the disability plan itself or evidence of its funding and the parties' intent at trial. The Board also noted that ERISA preemption was raised for the first time on reconsideration, without an evidentiary hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyOld Republic Insurance CompanyWilliam Yonemitsucumulative injurykneeslow backcable splicing techexcess creditPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ347577 (SAC 0220919)
Regular
Jul 09, 2009

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, RELIANCE INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, PACIFC BELL

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed an award for applicant Stephen Flannery's back and psyche injury. Pacific Bell, the special employer, was found jointly and severally liable with the general employer's insurer, Reliance (now CIGA), for ongoing benefits, as Pacific Bell's self-insurance constitutes "other insurance." The Board reversed the WCJ's award of temporary total disability beyond the five-year jurisdictional limit unless the disability straddled the anniversary date. The doctrine of laches was found inapplicable against CIGA, and CIGA was not liable for EDD's lien as Pacific Bell was the primary source of benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAReliance Insurance liquidationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPacific Bellspecial employerjoint and several liabilitylachesnew and further disabilityfive-year jurisdictional period
References
Case No. ADJ3478352 (OAK 0318333)
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

RUKIYA PIERSON vs. PACIFIC BELL, SEDGWICK

In *Pierson v. Pacific Bell*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a December 14, 2015 decision. The WCAB deemed reconsideration necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Pending the WCAB's decision after reconsideration, all related communications must be filed directly with the Board's Office of the Commissioners and not with district offices or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific BellSedgwickStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMS
References
Case No. ADJ1099489 (VNO 0555304)
Regular
Jan 15, 2013

MICHELLE HALLIE vs. PACIFIC BELL AND TELEPHONE (AT&T successor in interest)

This case involves applicant Michelle Hallie and defendant Pacific Bell (AT&T) seeking reconsideration of a decision filed October 22, 2012. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is taken to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to render a just decision after appropriate further proceedings. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific BellAT&T successorSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedings
References
Case No. ADJ2647713 (SFO 0504908) ADJ2419734 (SFO 0504906) ADJ292246 (SFO 0505632)
Regular
Sep 28, 2010

ANNA HONG vs. SBC INTERNET SERVICES/PACIFIC BELL, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves applicant Anna Hong and defendants SBC Internet Services/Pacific Bell and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing an order to dismiss the Petition for Removal filed by the applicant. This dismissal is based solely on the applicant's withdrawal of that petition. Deputy Commissioner Schmitz, who was part of a prior panel, is unavailable to participate further.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSBC Internet ServicesPacific BellAmerican Home AssuranceSedgwick Claims Management ServicesDeputy Commissioner SchmitzCase Numbers
References
Case No. ADJ3030472
Regular
Jul 01, 2010

RAYMOND SIKES vs. SBC/PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO., LIBERTY MUTUAL 29073 GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, SBC/Pacific Bell Telephone Co. This reconsideration was sought regarding a previous decision served on April 23, 2010. The Board determined that granting reconsideration was necessary due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action will allow for a more complete understanding of the record and ensure a just and reasoned decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationGRANTINGOPINION AND ORDERstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionfurther proceedingsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners
References
Case No. SAC 261152
Regular
Mar 25, 2008

MARIAN VIZGAUDIS vs. PACIFIC BELL, HELMSMAN RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding the applicant sustained an industrial injury causing 63% permanent disability. The Board held that the defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence for apportionment of this disability to prior injuries. Furthermore, attempting to apportion the current award to prior stipulated awards would improperly alter or amend those earlier decisions, contrary to legislative intent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific BellHelmsman Risk Management ServicesMarian Vizgaudisindustrial injuryback injuryneck injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ6626132
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

IMELDA DELACRUZ LOPEZ vs. PACIFIC BELL; SEDGWICK 51460 ONTARIO

The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of a WCJ's order denying their petition to strike a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not a final one. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's arguments regarding the QME report's evidentiary value and due process were not considered due to procedural deficiencies.

WCABADJ6626132Pacific BellSedgwickPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderPetition to Strike QME PanelDr. Sanatharasubstantial evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 405 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