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. ADJ14178627
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

ELISANDRO CAMPOS vs. PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Elisandro Campos's petition to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the petition lacked specific facts, under penalty of perjury, to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Legal precedent dictates that conclusory allegations or subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient, and judicial expressions of opinion based on evidence do not constitute grounds for disqualification. The Board also admonished the applicant for filing duplicative and potentially frivolous pleadings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationWCJdisqualification groundsCode of Civil Procedure section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10960affidavit
References
8
Case No. ADJ9828813, ADJ9828571
Regular
Sep 18, 2019

Eric Life vs. State of California Department of Corrections, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Eric Life's Petition for Disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The dismissal was based on multiple grounds: the petition was untimely filed nearly three months after the last WCJ action, and it failed to serve the opposing parties or include a proof of service. Furthermore, the WCAB noted that even if timely and properly served, the petition lacked specific factual allegations under penalty of perjury required to establish grounds for disqualification. The Board also admonished the applicant for engaging in prohibited ex parte communications.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ disqualificationdue processLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452untimely filingfailure to serveex parte communicationCode of Civil Procedure section 641bias
References
10
Case No. ADJ10678864
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

ALEX CASTILLO MASIS vs. EAST BAY FOODS INC, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Disqualification filed against a Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing an unqualified opinion or bias. Upon review of the record and the WCJ's report, the Board found the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations, declared under penalty of perjury, to establish disqualification. Although the WCJ suggested sanctions for false statements by applicant's attorney, the Board declined to impose them but admonished the attorney for not being candid and truthful. Therefore, the Petition for Disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960Judicial BiasPrejudgmentWCJ ReportSanctionsRule 10421False Declarations
References
8
Case No. ADJ861951 (SBR 0325578)
Regular
Sep 26, 2017

MICHELE DOERKSEN vs. VICTOR VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the WCJ. Additionally, the Board admonished applicant's attorney, S. Roger Kampf, for using offensive, inappropriate, and disrespectful language in the petition, specifically accusations that the judge wrote her opinion as a defense attorney rather than an impartial judge. Mr. Kampf was also admonished for filing a pleading containing false or misleading statements of fact. Failure to comply with Board rules in the future may result in sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code § 5813Sanctionable ConductOffensive LanguageMisrepresentation of FactDefenses Attorney AllegationSlanted AnalysisMedical Expert Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Landau

Lawrence Landau, indicted for perjury related to alleged union payoffs, moved to dismiss the indictment. The court found that the grand jury prosecutor's questions, which formed the basis of the perjury charge, were "fundamentally ambiguous." The questions were phrased such that Landau could reasonably interpret them to refer to a time period preceding March 1983, while the government's key evidence was a tape recording from June 1983, a period not explicitly covered by the questioning. The court emphasized the prosecutor's duty to ask precise questions. Consequently, the motion was granted, and the indictment was dismissed.

PerjuryGrand JuryIndictment DismissalFundamental AmbiguityDue ProcessFifth AmendmentFederal Criminal ProcedureUnion Extortion InvestigationWitness TestimonyStatute of Limitations
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wynn v. AC ROCHESTER

Plaintiff James I. Wynn, Jr. initiated an action against his former employer AC Rochester, General Motors Corporation, and personnel manager Charles Volo, alleging fraud and misrepresentation following a layoff and a buy-out agreement. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing federal law under the Labor Management Relations Act. Wynn sought to amend his complaint to include claims for class action certification, breach of collective bargaining agreement, perjury, mail fraud, and a jury trial. Chief Judge Larimer denied all of Wynn's proposed amendments, citing futility, failure to satisfy class action requirements, failure to exhaust administrative remedies and statute of limitations issues for the collective bargaining claim, lack of legal basis for fraud and perjury, and a waived right to a jury trial due to an untimely request.

fraudmisrepresentationcollective bargaining agreementclass actionmotion to amenddenial of motionemployment disputelayoffstatute of limitationsjury trial waiver
References
9
Case No. 1318/79
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Arnette

In 1979, the Queens County Grand Jury investigated the defendant, the Superintendent of the Centralized Services Facility, for allegedly using State employees and materials for personal home repairs during work hours. The defendant was subsequently charged with criminal contempt, perjury, rewarding official misconduct, and conspiracy. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of two counts of contempt, acquitted of perjury, and later pleaded guilty to rewarding official misconduct. The Appellate Division reversed the contempt convictions and vacated the plea. The People appealed, conceding the second contempt count but arguing for the reinstatement of the first. The Court found the defendant's Grand Jury testimony regarding his knowledge of employees working at his home to be equivocal and evasive, despite seemingly clear statements in isolation, as he contradicted his prior testimony about remembering such events. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was modified to reinstate the criminal contempt conviction on the first count and the case was remitted to the Appellate Division for a determination of facts.

Criminal contemptGrand JuryEvasive testimonyPerjuryOfficial misconductAppellate reviewRemittalQueens CountyState employeesWaiver of immunity
References
4
Case No. ADJ1620559 (ANA 0373462)
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

Wayne Johnson vs. Tennant Company, Sentry Claims Service

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering applicant's counsel, defense counsel, and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide sworn declarations regarding an alleged ex parte communication. This communication apparently led the WCJ to vacate a prior submission order, citing the applicant's upcoming surgery and a utilization review denial resolution. The defendant seeks removal, claiming the WCJ improperly obtained this information. The WCAB is also ordering all future correspondence be directed to the Commissioners.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDecision after ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpineRight Lower ExtremityPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ2869065 (LBO 0313061) ADJ3077375 (VNO 0308945) ADJ2422782 (VNO 0299504)
Regular
Jan 05, 2009

LARRY E. MOORE vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

The WCAB dismissed the applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the WCJ’s order continuing the matter to a status conference, as it was an interim procedural order, not a final order. The WCAB also admonished applicant’s counsel for making misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5902RemovalLabor Code Section 5310Significant Prejudice
References
12
Case No. SDO 360301
Regular
Mar 25, 2008

Teresa H. Huckaby vs. ADSI-OSCO/SAV-ON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant's claims administrator. The petition was dismissed because it was untimely, unverified, and unserved on the applicant. The WCAB noted that the defendant claimed late receipt of the original order but did not support this claim under penalty of perjury.

Petition for reconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePermanent disability advancesWCJClaims administratorUnverifiedUnservedLabor Code section 5900WCAB Rule 10850Official Address Record
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 463 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