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. ADJ7108994
Regular
Dec 03, 2010

ALESCHAI HERNDON vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The applicant, Alehschai Herndon, sustained injuries when struck by a truck while crossing the street after parking her car in an employer-provided lot. Initially, she parked in an unauthorized area and was instructed to move, which she did after starting her work shift. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the injury AOE/COE under the "premises line" rule. The Board reasoned that by parking in the employer-provided lot, the applicant had entered the employer's premises, and her subsequent injury occurred within a reasonable margin of time and space from her workplace.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantCity of PasadenaIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEGoing and Coming RulePremises Line RuleEmployer-Provided Parking LotMoving VehicleUnauthorized Parking
References
Case No. ADJ7843441
Regular
Feb 15, 2013

MICHAEL MENDOZA vs. KELLY SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE c/o ESIS

In Mendoza v. Kelly Services, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant's injury, sustained while walking from an employer-assigned parking lot to the worksite, was not barred by the going and coming rule. The applicant was injured crossing a freeway on-ramp when a truck struck him. The Board reasoned that the applicant had already entered the employer's premises and the employment relationship had commenced when he was injured.

Going and coming ruleIndustrial injuryDeferred body partsParking lotEmployer premisesUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideParking placardFreeway on-rampAOE/COE
References
Case No. ADJ9697744
Regular
May 25, 2018

JASON POIRIER vs. CITY OF MENLO PARK, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, CITY OF BRISBANE; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision that denied Jason Poirier's claim for kidney cancer benefits. The Board found that the City of Menlo Park failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that Poirier's cancer was industrially caused. Crucially, the Board ruled that Poirier's prior employment with the City of Brisbane could be combined with his Menlo Park employment to satisfy the minimum latency period for cancer causation, a point the trial judge had incorrectly excluded. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to establish that Poirier sustained an industrial injury and returned the case for benefit determination.

Labor Code section 3212.1renal cell carcinomacarcinogen presumptionrebuttallatency periodcumulative traumapolice officerCity of Menlo ParkCity of Brisbaneindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ2189918 (LBO 0387807)
Regular
Apr 20, 2017

RUDEEN PARKS vs. THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rudeen Parks' petition for reconsideration, which alleged newly discovered evidence of fraud regarding a prior disability retirement. The Board found the petition lacked specificity and failed to meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of 100% permanent disability, the award of lifetime indemnity benefits, and the directive for the defendant to handle attorney's fees and liens, noting issues like taxability are outside their jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRudeen ParksPort of Los AngelesCity of Los AngelesFindings and AwardOpinion and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeSecurity OfficerIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3935605
Regular
Apr 09, 2009

JOHANNA HOAGLAND vs. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, REMIF

This case, involving Johanna Hoagland and the City of Rohnert Park/REMIF, is dismissed because the petitioner has withdrawn their Petition for Reconsideration. The Board issued an order formally dismissing the petition that was filed. The dismissal is effective as of April 9, 2009.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJohanna HoaglandCity of Rohnert ParkREMIFADJ3935605SRO 0113564Frank M. Brass
References
Case No. ADJ4588032 (VNO 0509614)
Regular
May 13, 2009

PEGGY SPARGO vs. CITY OF BALDWIN PARK

This case involves a lien claimant, RS Medical, seeking payment for durable medical equipment provided to an applicant for an admitted industrial injury. The defendant, City of Baldwin Park, denied authorization for the treatment through its utilization review (UR) process. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the trial judge's decision. The WCAB found that the defendant's UR denials were timely and unchallenged by the applicant, and thus RS Medical failed to prove the necessity of the treatment or sustain its burden of proof for payment. Therefore, the employer is not liable for the unauthorized medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Baldwin ParkRS Medicallien claimreconsiderationFindings and Orderworkers' compensation judgeWCJindustrial injuryupper extremities
References
Case No. ADJ218867
Regular
Apr 13, 2011

SANDY FRIZZELL vs. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, CHARTIS COSTA MESA, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision regarding Sandy Frizzell's claim against the Department of Parks and Recreation. The petitioner, State Compensation Insurance Fund, contested the 17% disability rating assigned for Ms. Frizzell's headaches, arguing it was improperly calculated. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the rating expert's testimony credible and unimpeached. The judge's report explained that the rating appropriately reflected the intermittent nature of the headaches, as testified by the expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedRating Expert TestimonyUnimpeached TestimonyCredible TestimonyLyme DiseaseContinuing TraumaState Compensation Insurance FundResource EcologistDisability Evaluation Specialist
References
Case No. ADJ8205957
Regular
Dec 05, 2018

Margaret Marti Foxworthy vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves a State Park Ranger's workers' compensation claim for injury to her low back, hypertension, and psyche. The primary dispute centered on calculating her permanent disability rating, with the employer arguing for the Combined Values Chart (CVC) and the applicant preferring simple addition of impairments. The Appeals Board ultimately ruled that the CVC should be applied, resulting in a $67\%$ permanent disability rating, and clarified the timing of a $15\%$ "bump-up" in indemnity payments. The dissenting opinion argued against the CVC's application and challenged apportionment of hypertension disability due to lack of substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleCombined Values ChartApportionmentIndustrial InjuryState Park RangerHypertensionPsycheSexual DysfunctionDRE Lumbar Category III
References
Case No. ADJ2341059 (LBO0283508)
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

SHARON ELEBY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, MARTIN LUTHER KING HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Park Compounding. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found that Park Compounding failed to meet its burden of proof. Specifically, the lien claimant did not demonstrate that the dispensed medications were reasonable and necessary for the applicant's treatment. Furthermore, Park Compounding failed to prove it properly requested authorization for the medications, a prerequisite for payment under workers' compensation law.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPark CompoundingSICM GroupLien ClaimantRequest for AuthorizationReasonableness and NecessityMedical TreatmentCompound MedicationsPrimary Treating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ7486243
Regular
May 23, 2011

WALTER ROSS III vs. SOUTHGATE PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Applicant Walter Ross III against Southgate Parks and Recreation District and York Insurance Services Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report. Finding no grounds for removal, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition. The order officially denies Walter Ross III's petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDeny RemovalSouthgate Parks and Recreation DistrictYork Insurance Services GroupADJ7486243Oakland District OfficeDecision and OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Showing 1-10 of 123 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