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. ADJ1070549 (SAC 0354129)
Regular
Sep 01, 2010

LISA ROGERS vs. NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES/ MERRYHILL; CHUBB GROUP for FEDERAL INSURANCE

Applicant Lisa Rogers filed a letter requesting the disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, alleging unprofessional conduct and a conflict of interest. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this letter as a petition for disqualification. However, the WCAB dismissed the petition because it was unverified, not properly served on all parties, and failed to comply with procedural requirements. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the petition for disqualification dismissed.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10844WCAB Rule 10850Labor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Unrepresented ApplicantRude and UnprofessionalConflict of InterestPresiding Judge Joel HarterAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pfeiffer v. Rand (In Re Rand)

Katherine Pfeiffer, an unemployed office worker acting pro se, objected to the discharge of Jonathan Rand and the dischargeability of her claim against him. Rand moved to dismiss her complaint, citing improper service and failure to state a claim. The court found Pfeiffer's January 3rd letter constituted a timely complaint, but her subsequent service of only a summons was improper. However, acknowledging Pfeiffer's pro se status and efforts to correct the error, the court denied Rand's motion to dismiss for improper service, instead quashing the service and directing Pfeiffer to re-serve once an amended complaint is filed. The court granted Rand's motion to dismiss Pfeiffer's objection to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 due to a lack of pleaded facts, without leave to replead. Conversely, the court conditionally denied the motion to dismiss Pfeiffer's claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523, granting her leave to replead with particularity, and also denied Rand's request for sanctions.

BankruptcyDischargeabilityMotion to DismissAdversary ProceedingPro Se LitigantRule 7004Rule 4(j)Rule 727Rule 523Fraudulent Intent
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2010

Correa v. Orient-Express Hotels, Inc.

This is a wrongful death action where the plaintiffs allege that a decedent slipped and fell at premises owned by 21 Club, Inc., a company indirectly wholly-owned by the defendant. The defendant appealed the denial of their pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting the defendant's arguments based on documentary evidence and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court clarified that the defendant's potential liability stems from ownership and/or control of the premises, not necessarily being an alter ego of 21 Club, Inc.

Wrongful DeathMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Corporate OwnershipAlter EgoPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAppellate DivisionAffirmedProcedural Motion
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Intellective, Inc. v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance

Plaintiff Intellective Inc. filed an antitrust action against five life insurance companies (the 'Working Group'), PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), and Sagamore Advisors, alleging a conspiracy to monopolize the market for investment performance studies of life insurance companies. Intellective claimed the Working Group used restrictive 'Letter Agreements' to control proprietary data, preventing competition and Intellective's ability to create rival studies. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on various legal doctrines, including the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine and lack of antitrust standing. The court granted the motions to dismiss against PwC and Sagamore entirely, finding no alleged anticompetitive conduct, and also dismissed Counts Three and Five against all defendants. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss against the Insurance Company Defendants, allowing Counts One, Two, Four, and Six to proceed against them.

Antitrust LawMonopolizationConspiracy to MonopolizeGroup BoycottSherman ActClayton ActDonnelly ActMotion to DismissAntitrust StandingNoerr-Pennington Doctrine
References
42
Case No. ADJ8433569
Regular
Jan 28, 2015

MICHAEL KATZ vs. CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the principle that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders, not interlocutory procedural rulings. The WCAB clarified that pre-trial orders concerning evidence, discovery, trial scheduling, or venue are considered interlocutory and do not determine substantive rights. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was not filed in response to a final, appealable decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPre-trial Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ4173320(VNO 0386574)
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

RENEE SOTILE vs. KTLA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by BROADSPE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Renee Sotile's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the fact that reconsideration can only be granted for final orders, decisions, or awards, not interlocutory procedural orders. Pre-trial orders concerning evidence, discovery, trial setting, or venue are considered interlocutory and do not determine substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the Board found Sotile's petition was improperly filed and dismissed it.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5900
References
5
Case No. ADJ8938458
Regular
Jun 16, 2014

JUAN SOLANO RAMIREZ vs. ELAINE BELL CATERING, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a Petition for Reconsideration filed by former attorney Kenneth Martinson concerning a dismissed claim. Martinson argued the claim was dismissed before he could pursue his lien for fees. However, Martinson subsequently withdrew his Petition for Reconsideration and also requested the dismissal of his lien. Consequently, the Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as withdrawn and dismissed Martinson's lien by operation of law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien DismissalLabor Code Section 5710Appeals Board Rule 10770(g)Appeals Board Rule 10770(h)Dismissal of ClaimLien ClaimantWithdrawal of PetitionAttorney Fees
References
0
Case No. ADJ944426(VNO 0538295); ADJ7895528
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

DANIEL BELLING vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

Applicant's attorney sent a letter to the judge expressing concern about receiving a "fair shake" in discovery proceedings, which the judge construed as a Petition for Disqualification. However, the applicant's attorney subsequently clarified they did not intend to file such a petition. The Appeals Board dismissed the letter, deeming it insufficient to establish grounds for disqualification. The judge's report detailed the procedural history and found no bias, noting the letter lacked specific facts to support disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCJStatus ConferenceDiscovery proceedingsPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPriority ConferenceAOE/COEMotion to Quash Deposition
References
0
Case No. ADJ6876456
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

MARILYN BROWN vs. COLLECTCORP CORPORATION, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss. The WCAB also dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal as untimely, as it was filed more than 20 days after the order it challenged. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for removal. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code $\S 5405$JurisdictionDue ProcessFinal OrderTimelinessCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13,846 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