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. ADJ7597520
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

MAZIO ROYSTER vs. NFL EUROPE, TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that it has jurisdiction over an applicant's injury claim against NFL Europe. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant's contract of hire was formed in California, even though the injury occurred out-of-state. The Board also held that any forum selection clause in the contract would not be enforced as it contravenes California public policy favoring workers' compensation rights when the contract of hire is made within the state. The WCAB's reasoning relied heavily on statutory provisions and case law establishing California's jurisdiction when the contract formation occurs in California.

WCABNFL EuropeTIG Specialty Insurance CompanyZenith Insuranceindustrial injuryprofessional athletecontract of hireforum selection clausejurisdictionpublic policy
References
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
Case No. ADJ4213301 (ANA 0398168)
Regular
Apr 01, 2015

REGGIE STEPHENS vs. NASHVILLE KATS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the applicant was hired in California, establishing jurisdiction for workers' compensation claims under Labor Code sections 3600.5(a) and 5305. The Board found that accepting an employment offer by telephone in California constituted hiring, regardless of subsequent contract signing elsewhere. This hiring connection was deemed sufficient to support jurisdiction, overriding contractual choice-of-law provisions that conflicted with California's public policy protecting workers' compensation rights. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCABcumulative industrial injuryoral contract of hirechoice of law provisionjurisdictioncontract of hireconditions subsequentforum selection clausepublic policy
References
Case No. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
Case No. ADJ11002880
Regular
Mar 10, 2020

ROGELIO SANCHEZ vs. LA PALMA FARMS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision rescinded a prior award, finding insufficient evidence to support sanctions against former attorney Ozeran for missed conferences and improper filings. The Board reallocated attorney's fees, granting Ozeran $1,000 and current attorney Stone $2,750, based on the overall work and results obtained. Ozeran's earlier conduct related to conference attendance and procedural service issues was deemed to have reasonable justification, negating the basis for sanctions. The Board also admonished Ozeran for disrespectful language used in his filings.

WCABReconsiderationAttorney's FeesSanctionsPetition for RemovalProof of ServiceWCAB RulesQMECompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 4906(d)
References
Case No. ADJ9734483, ADJ9502727
Regular
Oct 08, 2015

JUAN PALMA vs. CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant whose case, ADJ9502727, was inadvertently dismissed due to a clerical error when he filed a dismissal petition for a duplicative case, ADJ9734483. Although the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely and therefore dismissed, the Appeals Board granted removal on its own motion. The Board rescinded the erroneous dismissal order for ADJ9502727, finding it caused significant prejudice and was a correctable clerical mistake. The matter is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseADJ9502727ADJ9734483WCJremovalclerical erroruntimely petitionrescinded order
References
Case No. OAK 0305052
Regular
Dec 19, 2007

GUILLERMO PALMA vs. BEST EXPRESS FOODS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that applied the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS), arguing the 1997 PDRS should apply. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, deferring the PDRS application and permanent disability determination pending the California Supreme Court's decision in a related case, *Vera v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* The matter is returned to the trial level for a new decision after the *Vera* outcome.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating Schedule2005 PDRS1997 PDRSVera v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code Section 4660Treating Physician's ReportPermanent and StationarySupreme Court ReviewReconsideration Granted
References
Case No. ADJ10104251 ADJ10104255
Regular
Aug 01, 2017

MARCELINO PALMA vs. EVAN HUMPHREYS LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT, FIRST COMP dba MARKEL INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal by defendant Markel Insurance Company. The defendant sought removal due to the WCJ ordering two additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels in ophthalmology and psychology, arguing it caused prejudice and cost. However, the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the defendant's counsel explicitly stated "No, your Honor" when asked for objections to the orders. The decision to develop the record via additional QMEs was within the WCJ's discretion.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluationOphthalmologyPsychologyWCJ discretionsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)specific injury
References
Case No. ADJ7781676
Regular
Nov 01, 2017

TERESA HERNANDEZ vs. T K & J, INC., dba LAS PALMAS RESTAURANT, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim by Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center for medical treatment provided to applicant Teresa Hernandez. The applicant sustained a complex injury in 2010, and the employer provided some treatment through Dr. Lane, an MPN physician, including surgeries. The lien claimant contended that proper MPN notice was not provided and that the applicant was therefore entitled to seek treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the lien claimant failed to demonstrate that any lack of notice resulted in a denial of reasonable medical treatment, a burden of proof established by statute. Therefore, the employer was not liable for the applicant's self-procured treatment with non-MPN providers.

MPNLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Provider NetworkReasonably Necessary Medical TreatmentSelf-ProcureBurden of ProofLabor CodeSB 863
References
Showing 1-10 of 10 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