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. ADJ6705178
Regular
Aug 07, 2014

JOSE MORALES vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant Payless Shoesource's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The defendant sought to challenge the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's bilateral lower extremities and right upper extremity. The petition was filed 29 days after the August 7, 2014 Opinion and Decision, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline for reconsideration. Even if timely, the Board indicated it would have been denied on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Dismissing PetitionIndustrial InjuryBilateral Lower ExtremitiesRight Upper ExtremityLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post Termination DefenseUntimely PetitionJurisdictional Deadline
References
4
Case No. ADJ3566620 (SBR 0331934) ADJ3758235 (SBR 0336076)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

MELANIE MEDBERY vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Payless Shoe Source's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and lower extremity. Crucially, they affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that Payless violated Labor Code section 132a by unlawfully terminating the applicant. The employer's stated reason for termination, a violation of the attendance policy, was deemed pretextual and not supported by the evidence or the company's own handbook.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryRight Lower Extremity InjuryLabor Code Section 132aViolationDiscriminationDifferential Treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ1052618
Regular
May 24, 2012

HAYDEE MUNOZ vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Haydee Munoz. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition, in this instance, sought reconsideration of a pre-trial order regarding evidence, which is considered a non-final interlocutory order. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the request for removal were denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightLiabilityRemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code SectionsNon-FinalProcedural Decisions
References
5
Case No. ADJ7774238
Regular
Dec 05, 2013

MIRIAM PANTOJA vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Payless Shoe Source, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed **untimely**. Specifically, the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original Findings were issued on September 13, 2013, exceeding the statutory 20-day filing deadline plus mailing extensions. Therefore, the Board found the petition procedurally deficient and dismissed it.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissFindingsadministrative law judgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013mailingWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. VNO 0474985, VNO 0509055, VNO 0509563
Regular
Sep 18, 2007

RENEE BARCELON vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the temporary disability period, finding applicant totally temporarily disabled from June 21, 2003, through January 11, 2006, based on Dr. Perelman's opinion. This decision affirmed the WCJ's findings regarding industrial injuries to the applicant's right wrist, bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities, neck, and back. The Board also affirmed the need for future medical treatment and the permanent disability award, while modifying the temporary disability end date.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardJoint Opinion on DecisionPrimary Treating PhysicianPermanent and Stationary DateTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent DisabilityMedical EvidenceWork Restrictions
References
1
Case No. ADJ1 403905 (LBO 0392263)
Regular
Oct 02, 2012

LATRICE JONES vs. PAYLESS SHOES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the WCJ erred by finding an industrial injury and excluding certain witnesses. The Board found the WCJ's credibility determination of the applicant's testimony regarding the assault to be within the WCJ's purview. Additionally, the defendant failed to preserve its arguments regarding excluded witnesses as they were not properly recorded in the record. Finally, issues regarding whether the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment were waived as they were not raised at trial or in the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryCredibility DeterminationsWitness TestimonyMinutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
1
Case No. TI17381166
Regular
Dec 14, 2017

RICHARD AVILA vs. PAYLESS CASHWAYS, CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's April 3, 2017 order requiring defendants to continue providing applicant's current medications only through the date of the decision, based on a final October 1, 2015 order. Future medical treatment requests must now follow standard Utilization Review and Independent Medical Review processes. The Board rescinded the WCJ's orders regarding prepayment of applicant's travel and lodging expenses, finding no legal basis for them. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to resolve outstanding issues, including the timeliness of the prior IMR determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRichard AvilaPayless CashwaysContinental Insurance CompanyCNA ClaimsDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Utilization Review (UR)Independent Medical Review (IMR)Labor Code sections 4062
References
3
Case No. ADJ1547128
Regular
Sep 15, 2008

DURU JETLEY vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the June 25, 2008 Findings and Award, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision under the 1997 schedule due to a 4061 notice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityRating ScheduleLabor Code section 4061Labor Code section 4660(d)Temporary Disability IndemnityMedical-Legal ReportTreating Physician
References
3
Case No. ADJ6668545
Regular
Dec 05, 2014

ANGELA SALAZAR vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, ZURICH, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Applicant Angela Salazar's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the Judge's report, which found that while Salazar was a credible witness, the medical evidence did not constitute substantial evidence to support an industrial injury. The Judge determined that medical reports lacked critical details like work hours and failed to adequately explain causation. Furthermore, Salazar's own testimony and her post-injury success in education and employment supported the finding of no compensable industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceCumulative TraumaAOE/COECredibilityLiberal ConstructionLabor Code
References
0
Case No. ADJ1466843 (FRE 0156295)
Regular
Aug 06, 2019

RICHARD AVILA vs. PAYLESS CASHWAYS, CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CNA CLAIMPLUS

This case involves Applicant Richard Avila's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition because it was skeletal and failed to meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Specifically, the petition did not detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite supporting evidence from the record, or clearly set forth legal arguments. Therefore, the Board found the petition procedurally deficient and dismissed it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSkeletal PetitionLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.Administrative Law JudgeSpecificityMaterial EvidenceRecord References
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13 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