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. ADJ18816357
Regular
May 15, 2025

JERRY WILLIAMS vs. PRIMORIS ELECTRIC, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied the Petition for Removal filed by the petitioner. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were to occur. The decision emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board, referencing precedents like Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. and Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. for this stance.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ12315169
Regular
Sep 10, 2019

Gregory Williams vs. Redwood Electric Group, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

The Appeals Board affirmed an Arbitrator's finding that an electrician's injuries, potentially from electrocution, arose out of employment. Despite the unwitnessed nature of the injury and lack of direct evidence on the precise cause, the Board applied the *Clemmens* doctrine, creating a presumption that the injury occurred in the course of employment when the employee is placed at the location by the employer. Circumstantial evidence, including entry and exit wounds and the active construction site environment, supported the industrial nature of the injury. The defendant's arguments regarding the neutral risk doctrine, burden of proof, and denial of due process were found unpersuasive or waived.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRedwood Electric GroupTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaJourneyman Electricianupper and lower extremitiesbody systemskinkidneysheartbrain
References
Case No. ADJ3147799 (RIV 0080159)
Regular
Aug 19, 2010

PETER TORCELLINI vs. SATURN ELECTRIC INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Saturn Electric's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that Peter Torcellini sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion constituted substantial medical evidence supporting the conclusion that a work-related stressor, even if subjectively experienced by the applicant, triggered the plaque rupture causing his cardiac arrest. The Board reasoned that the applicant's testimony about finding the work stressful and the medical opinion linking the rupture to an immediate stress response provided a reasonable basis for the finding. Defendant failed to provide evidence to contradict this medical opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedFinding of FactSaturn Electric Inc.Peter TorcelliniCirculatory System InjuryHeart AttackHypoxic Brain InjuryUnderground Utility TechIndustrial Causation
References
Case No. ADJ3578571
Regular

RONALD FUDALA vs. CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC., CNA INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Ronald Fudala's Petition for Removal against Contra Costa Electric, Inc. and CNA Insurance Corporation. The dismissal was based on the mediator's report, which indicated the disputed issue of entitlement to ankle surgery had been resolved. Consequently, the matter before the Board became moot.

Petition for RemovalAnkle SurgeryMoot IssueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalContra Costa ElectricCNA Insurance CorporationADJ3578571OAK 0266336Mediator Report
References
Case No. LAO 805574
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

JESUS RUIZ vs. WEST ELECTRIC CASTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify that the applicant is entitled to a 50% increase in all past, present, and future compensation. This decision affirms the administrative law judge's finding that the employer's serious and willful misconduct proximately caused the applicant's severe burn injuries. The WCAB found the employer liable for the increased compensation due to directing the applicant, who lacked adequate training and safety equipment, to work on a live electrical unit without proper precautions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and willful misconductIndustrial injuryHandymanMaintenance mechanicLive electrical unitSerious burn injuriesCal OSHALabor Code section 4553Fifty percent increase
References
Case No. LAO 0803996, LAO 0803995
Regular
Nov 20, 2007

ESTHER SALDANA vs. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sustained an electrical shock injury while using a malfunctioning sheeter machine at work. Despite prior reports of electrical issues and shocks from the machine to management, the employer failed to properly repair or remove it from use. The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the employer's actions constituted serious and willful misconduct, entitling the applicant to increased compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Industrial InjuryElectrical ShockSheeter MachineEmployer NegligenceManagerial KnowledgeSupervisor NeglectQuasi-Criminal Conduct
References
Case No. ADJ6750243
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

ROLANDO FIGUEREDO vs. COMET ELECTRIC, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior finding of industrial injury to the applicant's feet. The Board found the defendant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service of the original order. Ultimately, the Board concluded there was insufficient medical evidence to establish industrial injury to the applicant's feet. The prior finding of injury to the applicant's left thumb was otherwise affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoland FigueredoComet ElectricTravelersFindings and OrderReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLeft ThumbBilateral FeetElectrician
References
Case No. ADJ7047418
Regular
Dec 11, 2010

GEORGE SCHOPPLEIN vs. TENNYSON ELECTRIC, PACIFIC COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed an applicant's petition for removal because it was not verified as required by WCAB Rule 10843(b). The applicant sought to reverse a judge's finding that he needed further medical treatment within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued that the defendant failed to provide required notices under the Labor Code, regulations, and the *Knight* decision. Even if considered on its merits, the WCAB indicated it would have denied the petition, adopting the judge's reasoning.

Petition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)Knight v. United Parcel ServiceLabor CodeWCAB Rule 10843(b)Verified PleadingsWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Findings of FactAppeals BoardTennyson Electric
References
Case No. SJO 0253677
Regular
Jan 15, 2008

ROBERT BOJORQUEZ vs. ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., TIG INSURANCE

This case involved a dispute over the applicant's permanent disability rating following an industrial back injury. The WCJ found a 6% whole person impairment and awarded 27% permanent disability, including expert testimony on diminished earning capacity. The Appeals Board rescinded the permanent disability findings, deferring the issue to allow parties to reach an agreement or for further determination by the WCJ. The case returns to the trial level for further proceedings on permanent disability and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRosendin ElectricInc.Robert BojorquezOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackConstruction LaborerWhole Person Impairment
References
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182), ADJ4664046 (SDO 0348183)
Regular
Nov 27, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychological injury. The defendant argued the applicant did not meet the six-month employment requirement under Labor Code 3208.3 or the "sudden and extraordinary" exception. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the psyche, determining the applicant's intermittent employment, including time after the injury, constituted sufficient "actual service." A dissenting opinion argued the applicant's service was less than six months and the backhoe injury was not "sudden and extraordinary."

Labor Code 3208.3Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurypsychestrokestreet light technicianSelect ElectricZurich North Americaactual service
References
Showing 1-10 of 138 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