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. ADJ736716 (ANA 0400973) ADJ3010829 (ANA 0400924) ADJ7503662 ADJ8980493
Regular
Nov 08, 2013

JAIME RAMIREZ vs. HIGH GRADE FORM, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH, CHARTIS

This case involved a Petition for Reconsideration challenging a lien dismissal. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The lien was dismissed because the $100 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06(a) was not paid, making the necessity of the services irrelevant. While the dismissal applied to services pre-dating July 31, 2012, the Board noted potential future claims for services rendered on May 6, 2013, would require a $150 filing fee and could be pursued as a petition for costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien dismissalLabor Code section 4903.06(a)Lien activation feeInterpreting servicesWCAB hearingINJAB RefundablePetition for costsCalifornia Lien Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ982471 (LAO 0859620)
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

JUVENCIO TORRES-RAMOS vs. FELIX MARQUEZ, REDWOOD FREE INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal and dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal. The applicant voluntarily withdrew their reconsideration petition after understanding that their pain management treatment request lacked the required authorization form. The case was referred to the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process for a decision on the applicant's need for pain management treatment.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRsubstantial evidenceutilization reviewtimelyprimary treating physicianDWC Form PR-2
References
1
Case No. ADJ16728179
Regular
Apr 28, 2023

Francis Trieu vs. Atria Senior Living, Safety National Casualty Corp., Gallagher Bassett Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant's petition for reconsideration because the order changing venue was not a final order. The Board denied the petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant. The Board also admonished applicant's counsel for misrepresenting due process, the location of their offices, and for failing to use the required fee disclosure form. Ultimately, the venue change to the San Francisco District Office was upheld.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Changing VenueLabor Code sections 5501.5Labor Code section 5501.6timely filingapplicant's counseladmonishmentdue processvenue authorization
References
1
Case No. ADJ11447249; ADJ11447255
Regular
Dec 07, 2020

IDALIA PEREZ vs. FOREVER 21, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

This case involves Idalia Perez's petitions for removal and disqualification against Forever 21 and its insurer, Ace American Insurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions. The Board found that Perez failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Regarding disqualification, the Board determined the petition was untimely and lacked sufficient factual basis, specific allegations of bias, or a declaration under penalty of perjury as required by statute.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJJudicial DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
3
Case No. ADJ2641844
Regular
Oct 20, 2008

NOEL BARRERA vs. BURGER KING #2067 HA, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss. The Board further denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. The defendant's initial petition to dismiss was denied by the WCJ for failing to comply with procedural requirements, including proper notice to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition to DismissNotice of Intention to DismissInterlocutory Procedural OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5310
References
6
Case No. ADJ9066751
Regular
Aug 10, 2015

CONSTANZA MEDINA VARGAS vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal, treating it as a Petition for Reconsideration, and denied that petition. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that the defendant failed to comply with Medical Provider Network (MPN) access standards. Specifically, the defendant did not have the required number of available chiropractors within the specified distance at the relevant time. Therefore, the applicant is not required to seek treatment within the defendant's MPN and may seek treatment elsewhere at the defendant's expense.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkMPN access standardsLabor Code section 4616Administrative Director Rule 9767.5primary treating physicianchiropractorsMinutes of Hearing
References
3
Case No. SBR 0271963; SBR 0247442; SBR 0247444; SBR 0247445; VNO 0299465; LAO 0761513; LAO 0761514; LAO 0761515; LAO 0761516; LAO 0761517; LAO 0761518; LAO 0761519; LAO 0761520; LAO 0761521; LAO 0761522; LAO 0761523; LAO 0761524; LAO 0761525; LAO 0761526; LAO 0761527; LAO 0761528; LAO 0761529; LAO 0761530
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

EDAR Y. ROGLER vs. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. JOHNSON; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed an attorney's petition seeking to remove or disqualify Judge Kacey Joseph Keating from presiding over her cases. The WCAB found the petition for removal procedurally improper and the petition for automatic reassignment untimely, as prior hearings involving the judge had occurred. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the disqualification petition because the applicant failed to provide legally sufficient grounds or a required affidavit.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for Automatic ReassignmentPetition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Attorney Applicant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2003

Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Pitofsky

This case addresses whether an arbitration provision in employment agreements (Employee Dispute Resolution Program - EDRP) between a securities broker-dealer and its employees supersedes an arbitration provision in the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U-4). Appellants, former employees of Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), were registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) via Form U-4, which mandates arbitration for employment disputes. CSFB later introduced an EDRP, which also required arbitration but included an exception for registered representatives legally bound to arbitrate in a specific forum. After their employment was terminated, a compensation dispute arose. Appellants sought arbitration with the NYSE, while CSFB demanded arbitration before JAMS, as per their EDRP, and petitioned the Supreme Court to stay the NYSE arbitration. The Supreme Court granted CSFB's petition, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the EDRP's exception applied, and Form U-4, along with NYSE rules, required arbitration in the NYSE forum. The court also noted that prior case law holds that employment agreements cannot supersede previously executed Form U-4 agreements. Consequently, the appellate court denied CSFB's petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration before the New York Stock Exchange.

Arbitration agreementEmployment disputeForm U-4Employee Dispute Resolution ProgramSecurities industryNational Association of Securities DealersNew York Stock ExchangeRegistered representativesContract interpretationSuperseding agreement
References
4
Case No. ADJ3736897 (RIV 0044021)
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

TERESA BOLTON vs. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petitions for removal, finding the defendant's petition for reconsideration untimely. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order vacating a prior minute order that required the defendant to pay $300 to the lien claimant. Consequently, the November 27, 2013 minute order, requiring the defendant to pay the costs, was reinstated. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCJ AuthorityMinute OrderLien ClaimantCosts AwardRescinded OrderReinstated OrderAppeals Board
References
6
Case No. ADJ2417702
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

SANDRA MEJIA vs. JACKSON'S CATERING & EVENTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration in *Mejia v. Jackson's Catering & Events* because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. Had it been verified, the Board would have denied it on the merits. The lien claimant failed to prove the medical necessity of transportation services, and the defendant was not required to prove compliance with certain notification requirements. The Board also admonished the petitioner for failing to adhere to form requirements for filed documents.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissedMedically reasonableNecessaryLabor Code section 4610(g)Medical provider network noticesMPNForm requirements
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 17,432 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