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. ADJ7707093
Regular
Oct 22, 2013

PORFIRIO CONTRERAS vs. GIBSON FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, applicant Porfirio Contreras' Petition for Removal was denied. The Board adopted the reasoning of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge, finding no basis to grant the removal. The decision indicates the case will proceed without further intervention from the Appeals Board at this stage.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdeny removalADJ7707093San Jose District OfficeGibson FarmsZenith InsurancePorfirio Contrerasadministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. 161063/19, 5782, 2024-06151
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2026

Contreras v. City of New York

Plaintiff Roger J. Contreras was injured by a falling chisel during a coffee break at a construction site in New York. He sued the City of New York and others under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 200, and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim but allowed amendment of his bill of particulars to include Industrial Code violations. It also dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Contreras's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, asserting that a worker on break is still protected and that the defective scaffolding was inadequate, regardless of the exact cause or origin of the falling object. The court found that the arguments related to common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims were academic due to the grant of summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1).

Falling ObjectScaffolding DefectLabor Law § 240(1) ClaimSummary Judgment GrantConstruction Site InjuryCoffee Break AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationsAppellate Division DecisionWorker SafetyNegligence Dismissal
References
5
Case No. 213 AD3d 601
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2023

Contreras v. Mall 1-Bay Plaza, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning claims for contribution and indemnification against a third-party defendant, Electrical Illuminations by Arnold Inc., by Mall 1-Bay Plaza, LLC, the third-party plaintiff. The claims arose from an injury sustained by the plaintiff, Julio Contreras. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding the claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court concluded that there was no allegation of a 'grave injury' and no written contract for indemnification or contribution was entered into prior to the accident with retroactive effect. Additionally, the claim for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance was also dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawIndemnification AgreementContribution ClaimsGrave InjuryRetroactive ContractBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
6
Case No. ADJ9782943
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

Felix Contreras vs. County of Fresno

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Felix Contreras' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that Contreras' injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment due to the "Going and Coming Rule." The judge found Contreras' testimony regarding his actions at the time of the accident lacked credibility, citing conflicting accounts and evidence that the stated work purpose was already completed. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations due to observing the witness demeanor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Going and Coming RuleCourse and Scope of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationsApplicant TestimonyEmployer TestimonyPrior Findings of Fact
References
1
Case No. ADJ1622633 (VEN 0115623)
Regular
May 15, 2012

SALVADOR CONTRERAS vs. M&C FARM LABOR, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE PASADENA, PAULA INSURANCE

This case involves Salvador Contreras's petition to reopen his workers' compensation claim for new and further disability. The original claim was venued in Ventura/Oxnard, but Contreras filed his reopen petition in Los Angeles. The WCJ denied the petition based on former WCAB Rule 10390, which required filing in the proper district office and did not excuse non-compliance for filing in an incorrect office. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed this decision, holding that current WCAB Rule 10397, which allows filing in any office, applied as a procedural change. The Court also found that even under former Rule 10390, Contreras demonstrated excusable neglect, thus compelling the WCAB to grant reconsideration and return the case for a decision on the merits.

RemittiturPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsLabor Code 5410Labor Code 5804WCAB Rule 10390WCAB Rule 10397Excusable NeglectNew and Further DisabilityCourt of Appeal
References
12
Case No. ADJ7091661
Regular
Apr 02, 2014

JOSE CONTRERAS vs. SPECIALTY MEATS, INC., TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved Jose Contreras alleging a continuous trauma injury to multiple body parts while employed as a butcher. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the findings of the administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found no industrial injury, relying on Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) reports that attributed the conditions to pre-existing or degenerative issues. The WCJ also found Contreras to be not credible due to inconsistencies and similarity to prior claims, and denied his attempt to elect against a specific defendant on the trial date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJIndustrial injuryFinal orderRemovalSpecialty MeatsInc.Travelers Casualty & Surety CompanyCompWest Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ4494642 (SBA 0026287)
Regular
Jun 18, 2009

MARY CONTRERAS vs. DAVID EARTHCRAFT, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the applicant, Mary Contreras, sought attorney fees under Labor Code section 4607 after successfully challenging the denial of specific requested medications by the defendant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior award of attorney fees, holding that section 4607 only applies when an employee successfully resists an employer's attempt to terminate an entire award of medical treatment, not just specific treatment requests. The WCAB relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in *Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which clarified this statutory interpretation. Therefore, the applicant was denied attorney fees as the defendant did not attempt to terminate the applicant's ongoing medical treatment award.

Utilization reviewAgreed medical evaluatorsAttorney feesSection 4607Termination of awardMedical treatmentMedication authorizationPermanent disabilityIndustrial injuryWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ7130808 ADJ8334379
Regular
Oct 28, 2016

MARIA CONTRERAS vs. PRODUCTS ENGINEERING CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In **Contreras v. Products Engineering Corporation**, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a petition for reconsideration sought by a lien claimant. The Board deemed reconsideration necessary due to statutory time constraints and an initial review indicating that further study of factual and legal issues is required. This action will allow for a more complete understanding of the record and a just decision. All future filings related to the petition must be submitted directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to any district office or e-filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Trial Level DocumentsPenalties
References
0
Case No. ADJ10173671
Regular
Jan 10, 2020

GRACIELA AGUAYO CONTRERAS vs. CASE VANDER EYK DAIRY 2, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Graciela Aguayo Contreras's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed over 25 days after the service of the original decision, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline for filing. The Board emphasized that filing with the WCAB, not just mailing, must occur within the statutory period. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalWCJAdministrative Law JudgeService by Mail
References
4
Case No. ADJ8438071
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

MONICA CONTRERAS vs. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, SACRAMENTO METRO; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE IRVINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Monica Contreras was an employee of Keller Williams Realty. The WCAB determined that the initial finding was erroneously based on the legal requirement for real estate agents to be associated with a broker, rather than a factual analysis of the control exercised by the defendant. The case is returned to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and a new decision considering the factual relationship and the multi-factor test for employment status. The WCAB emphasized that the right to control the means and manner of work is the primary test.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonica ContrerasKeller Williams RealtyTower National InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorReal Estate Agent
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 42 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