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. ADJ1959578
Regular
Oct 20, 2011

PHILIP DANIELS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Legally Uninsured, Administered by TRISTAR RISK MANANGEMENT, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

In ADJ1959578, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an August 5, 2011 decision. This decision was made to allow the WCAB further time to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues presented. The Board believes this step is necessary for a complete understanding of the record and to ensure a just and reasoned final decision. All future communications in this matter should be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners in San Francisco.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundCounty of Los AngelesLegally UninsuredTristar Risk Management
References
Case No. ADJ9778324
Regular
Nov 08, 2017

JAIRO RAMOS vs. JTS JOSE TREE SERVICE, INC., JOSE MIGUEL SOTO, DANIEL SOTO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury. The primary issue is determining the identity of the employer(s), with allegations of joint ownership/operation between JTS Jose Tree Service, Inc., Jose Miguel Soto, and Daniel Soto. Jose Soto's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. Daniel Soto's petition was granted because the original findings lacked evidentiary support and the record required further development regarding employment status and potential licensing issues. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJTS Jose Tree ServiceJose Miguel SotoDaniel SotoUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundFindings of FactOrder of DeferralPetition for ReconsiderationJoint EmployersSubstantial Shareholder
References
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

Daniel Escamilla vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Daniel Escamilla's petitions seeking production of eleven sanction case files and clarification of issues. The WCAB found Mr. Escamilla already possessed or had access to the relevant documents and had adequate notice of the issues concerning his alleged misconduct. His objections to providing an offer of proof were deemed untimely and without merit. Consequently, the Board affirmed the existing procedures and denied his requests.

WCABDaniel Escamillasanction proceedingsoffer of proofpetition for removalLabor Code Section 4907suspensionremoval of privilegerepresentativemoral character
References
Case No. ADJ6778085
Regular
Jan 08, 2014

DANIEL LOBATO vs. PENHALL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ZURICH/CONVERIUM, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Daniel Lobato v. Penhall International Corporation. The petitioner, who filed the reconsideration, has withdrawn their petition. Consequently, the WCAB has formally dismissed the reconsideration as requested.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionerDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6778085November 14 2013 DecisionLong Beach District OfficeZurich/ConveriumSedgwick CMSPenhall International Corporation
References
Case No. ADJ4229205 (MON0323976)
Regular
Oct 03, 2017

ADRINE GARABEDIAN vs. DANIEL BOUDAIE, an individual, dba DANIEL BOUDAIE, D.D.S., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award. The applicant's attorney fees under Labor Code § 5814.5 were determined in a 2013 award, which became final despite the exact amount being deferred for itemization. The Board found that the applicant was not seeking penalties more than two years from the due date, and therefore, Labor Code § 5814(g) did not apply to bar recovery. The prior award established a substantive right to attorney fees, and the reservation of jurisdiction for amount adjustment did not negate its finality.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENYWCJ REPORTADRINE GARABEDIANDANIEL BOUDAIEUNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUNDSECTION 5814(G)PENALTIESATTORNEY FEES
References
Case No. ADJ7399178
Regular
Nov 09, 2011

PHILIP JOHNSON vs. DISNEY COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case concerns a clerical error in a workers' compensation award where the applicant's attorney fee of $1,155.81 was omitted. The applicant sought reconsideration of the original award, arguing the fee was agreed upon in the Stipulations with Request for Award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, acknowledging the omission as a clerical error. The Board amended the original award to include the agreed-upon attorney's fee, affirming the rest of the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7399178Philip JohnsonDisney CompanyLiberty MutualOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for Awardattorney's feeclerical errorToccalino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ7949362
Regular
Dec 14, 2015

DANIEL CONTRERAS vs. GHILOTTI BROTHERS INCORPORATED, ZURICH

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a petitioner that was subsequently withdrawn. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition due to its withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal proceeding is terminated as per the petitioner's request.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnGhilotti Brothers IncorporatedZurichDaniel ContrerasADJ7949362San Francisco District OfficeMarguerite Sweeney
References
Case No. ADJ7895528 (VNO 0538295) ADJ944426
Regular
May 07, 2012

DANIEL BELLING vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined a substantive right or liability. Interlocutory orders, such as the one regarding evidence or trial setting in this case, are not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's report and finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCAB
References
Case No. ADJ7721471
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

DANIEL MURPHY vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the applicant's basal cell carcinoma is not an insidious progressive disease, therefore jurisdiction cannot be reserved for future permanent disability beyond the statutory five-year limit. The Board amended the findings to state that the injury was to the applicant's nose, not all sun-exposed skin, and future basal cell carcinomas would be considered new injuries. This decision clarifies that the applicant's current award covers the injury to his nose, and any future skin cancers will require separate claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundDaniel MurphyHighway Patrol Officerbasal cell carcinomainsidious progressive diseasereservation of jurisdictionLabor Code section 5804General Foundry Service v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jackson)
References
Case No. ADJ6990407
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

DANIEL CHESNUT vs. MANTECA POLICE DEPARTMENT, MUNICIPAL POOLING WALNUT CREEK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant, a police officer, sought to establish that his testicular cancer was presumptively industrial under Labor Code section 3212.1. However, the Agreed Medical Evaluator concluded that the cancer's manifestation fell outside the established ten-year minimum latency period for solid tumors, thus rebutting the statutory presumption. The Board found this conclusion to be substantial evidence, particularly as the applicant's cancer was not characterized by extreme aggressiveness or massive exposure doses that might shorten latency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDaniel ChesnutManteca Police DepartmentMunicipal Pooling Walnut CreekADJ6990407Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.1testicular cancerinjurious exposurepolice officer
References
Showing 1-10 of 183 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