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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ8750255 (MF), ADJ9260421
Regular
Nov 16, 2020

DAVID MARTIN vs. CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE EMPLOYEES OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a petition for reconsideration to amend findings of fact. Petitioners, a lien claimant group, failed to appear at four duly noticed hearings, leading to the WCJ finding them in contempt and ordering attorney's fees and sanctions totaling $3,750. While the WCAB affirmed the sanctions for bad faith conduct under Labor Code § 5813 and former WCAB Rule 10561, it clarified that the WCJ erroneously found contempt, as only the Appeals Board has the authority to issue contempt findings. The WCAB found no good cause for petitioners' repeated failures to appear.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsContemptLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Failure to AppearBad Faith ConductAttorney FeesPetitioners
References
Case No. ADJ7319072
Regular
Nov 13, 2013

MARIO FABELA vs. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Mario Fabela's petition for reconsideration of a decision that found he did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found Fabela's testimony lacked credibility, particularly in light of surveillance video showing him performing various physical activities with little difficulty two months after the alleged fall. Medical evidence also questioned the extent of his reported symptoms, noting negative diagnostic tests. Therefore, the Board concluded the evidence did not justify the applicant's claim for an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Staffmark InvestmentLLCCannon CochranFabelaDate of Injury
References
Case No. ADJ13114480
Regular
Mar 28, 2023

ANABEL VILLANUEVA vs. EPIPHANY CARE HOMES, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a cost petitioner's request for reimbursement of medical-legal expenses and attorney fees. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the primary medical-legal costs were paid. The WCJ also determined that the cost petitioner failed to prove bad faith actions or tactics by the defendant to warrant additional fees or sanctions. Furthermore, the Board noted the petitioner improperly attached documents to their reconsideration petition, violating procedural rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCost PetitionerMedical-Legal ExpensesOrder of ReimbursementLabor Code § 4622Labor Code § 5813Bad Faith ActionsCCR § 10786Sanctions
References
Case No. ADJ10933682
Regular
Dec 04, 2020

AMY LI vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Essential Interpreting Inc. (cost petitioner) concerning its claim for deposition preparation interpreting services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the cost petitioner failed to prove its services were reasonable and necessary under Labor Code section 5811. The defendant, Kaiser Permanente, had specifically stated in its deposition notice that it would provide the interpreter for both preparation and deposition time. Since the cost petitioner did not demonstrate why using an interpreter of its choosing was necessary over the one provided by the defendant, their claim for reimbursement was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5813deposition preparationinterpreting servicescost petitionerapplicantdefendantWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ16728100; ADJ16728102
Regular
Oct 06, 2025

MARCO ORTIZ vs. AZTECA LANDSCAPE INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Cost petitioner, Tony Barriere Interpreting Service, Inc., sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on June 16, 2025. The petitioner contended that discovery issues were relevant and that the defendant engaged in bad faith by unreasonably delaying payment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's recommendation, finding that the defendant's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and that the underlying bill had been paid with a self-imposed penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderCost PetitionerTony Barriere Interpreting ServiceBad Faith ActionsUnreasonable DelayLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10545(h)Sanctions
References
Case No. ADJ11420360
Regular
Jul 01, 2025

Candelario Aleman vs. Logistics Dubois Corporation, Guard Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by LRA Interpreters, Inc., a Cost Petitioner. The petitioner's claim for interpreting services was initially dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction, as they failed to comply with Labor Code requirements for requesting a second bill review. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that although interpreting services could be considered medical-legal, the procedural steps for seeking further payment were not followed, thus preventing the WCJ from having jurisdiction to evaluate the reasonableness of the charges. The decision reinforces the necessity of adhering to established billing review procedures.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code60-day periodtransmissionEAMSnoticeReport and RecommendationCost PetitionerLRA Interpreters
References
Case No. ADJ12062619, ADJ13567550
Regular
Sep 12, 2025

Utilio Haro vs. Gachina Landscape Management, Inc., Cypress Insurance

Gemini Legal Services, Inc., acting as a cost petitioner, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Order denying their petition for reimbursement of costs related to subpoenas. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred by not properly admitting evidence, including the subpoenas, into the record, which is essential for a decision based on substantial evidence. The Board also noted the WCJ's statements showed an appearance of bias against the cost petitioner. Consequently, the Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the June 10, 2025 F&O, and returned the case to the trial level for reassignment to a new WCJ and further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCost PetitionerPetition for ReimbursementCompromise and ReleaseSubpoenas Duces TecumMedical-Legal ExpenseContested ClaimAdmitted Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ10454603
Regular
Nov 09, 2018

KRISTIENA RODRIGUEZ vs. OLD PORT LOBSTER SHACK, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration in Case No. ADJ10454603. This dismissal occurred because the petitioner, Kristiina Rodriguez, voluntarily withdrew their petition. Consequently, no further action will be taken on this specific reconsideration request.

Petition for Reconsideration withdrawnDismissal orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantsSan Francisco District OfficeOpinion and OrderPetitionerLaughlin Falbo
References
Case No. ADJ9260544
Regular
May 13, 2014

JOSE ARAIZA vs. FOSTER FARMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jose Araiza's petition for reconsideration of a February 24, 2014 decision. The dismissal was based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the reconsideration request. This action concludes the reconsideration process initiated by Araiza.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawnDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFoster FarmsSelf-insuredADJ9260544Fresno District OfficeApplicantDefendant
References
Showing 1-10 of 497 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