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. ADJ3587886 (LAO 0857059)
Regular
Jul 05, 2012

JUAN ROSA vs. R.C. WENDT PAINTING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by lien claimant Liz West Interpreting regarding a $\$500.00$ sanction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board previously ordered sanctions against Liz West Interpreting and Collective Resources for sanctionable actions outlined in a Notice of Intention. The Board found that Liz West Interpreting is liable for the actions of its representative. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration is denied, upholding the original sanction order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLien ClaimantJointly and SeverallyNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsOpinion and OrderCollective ResourcesLiz West InterpretingR.C. Wendt Painting
References
Case No. AHM 0120052
Regular
Mar 04, 2008

BONIFACIO SANCHEZ vs. R.C. WENDT PAINTING COMPANY, OMNE STAFFING, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision determining the applicant's employer to clarify employment status. This action was taken to review a proposed $\$27,500.00$ compromise and release agreement, which included multiple lien claimants. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBonifacío SanchezR.C. Wendt Painting CompanyOMNE StaffingInc.Zurich American Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundZenith Insurance Company
References
Case No. ADJ1024275 [LBO 0380832] ADJ539039 [LBO 0380831]
Regular
Sep 15, 2008

MARIA VASQUEZ vs. MICHAEL DAO, dba WEST DENTAL

Defendant's petition for reconsideration is denied because the issues raised were already dismissed in prior petitions. The Appeals Board is not the correct venue to challenge the actions of defendant's prior attorney.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenGood CauseInvalid C&RVoid C&RUnenforceable C&RTimely-FiledPetition for Writ of Review
References
Case No. ADJ 7552376
Regular
Apr 04, 2016

HECTOR REYES BARRERA vs. RCO REFORESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Hector Reyes Barrera sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that he settled his right to a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefits (SJDB) voucher in a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. Barrera argued he did not understand he was waiving this benefit and did not initial the relevant section. However, the C&R clearly stated the settlement amount included monies for the SJDB voucher, and the Order Approving C&R explicitly included SJDB in the release. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Barrera settled his entitlement to the SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitsSJDB voucherCompromise and ReleaseC&RPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJwaivervocational rehabilitationentitlement
References
Case No. ADJ17371801; ADJ18218517
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

MARIO PALACIOS vs. PLAN B ADVANTAGE, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Mario Palacios petitioned for removal from a WCJ's order mandating in-person appearances for himself and two witnesses to verify signatures on a Compromise and Release (C&R). He also sought clarification on electronic signatures and challenged a prior C&R disapproval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the August 4, 2025 order and allowing Palacios to appear remotely to verify his signature. The Board declined to issue an advisory opinion on electronic signatures but referenced relevant codes, and deemed the challenge to the prior C&R disapproval moot due to an amended C&R.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseElectronic SignaturesIn-Person HearingRemote AppearanceDue ProcessWCJ OrderRescind OrderGood CauseWitness Testimony
References
Case No. ADJ9496258
Regular
Nov 04, 2016

ANTONIO AGUIRRE vs. CAPITAL BUILDERS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The defendant sought removal of a WCJ's order compelling the claims adjuster's appearance to determine the adequacy of a Compromise and Release (C&R). However, the parties subsequently withdrew the original C&R due to a change in the applicant's condition. They then submitted and obtained approval for a new C&R that settled the case for a larger sum. Since the issue requiring the adjuster's presence was resolved by the withdrawal of the original C&R and approval of a new settlement, the defendant's Petition for Removal is dismissed as moot.

Petition for RemovalOrder to AppearCompromise and ReleaseApplicant's Physical ConditionMoot DisputeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJClaims AdjusterNew C&R ApprovalDismissed as Moot
References
Case No. ADJ2798524 (SBR 0296412)
Regular
Feb 10, 2011

JOHN NOTTINGHAM vs. 911 DESIGN, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a lien claimant, Arrowback Medical Group (AMG), seeking reconsideration after their lien for medical treatment was disallowed. The underlying workers' compensation case was resolved by a Compromise and Release (C&R) approved on March 28, 2002, which made the applicant responsible for all future medical expenses. AMG argued they were denied due process because they were not served with the C&R or the Order Approving C&R (OACR). The Board denied reconsideration, finding that all disputed medical services occurred after the C&R was approved, and the OACR clearly placed responsibility for future medical costs on the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise And ReleaseIndustrial injuryLeft kneeMandatory settlement conferenceOfficial Medical Fee Schedule
References
Case No. ADJ8350670
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

SALOMON LOPEZ vs. D & T FOODS, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a dispute over the approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, legs, and abdomen. The WCJ issued an order requiring further medical evaluation despite the parties filing an amended C&R. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ's order was inappropriate. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's order, and approved the amended C&R, awarding the applicant a net recovery of $15,335.71.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseWCJ OrderQME evaluationAME evaluationabdominal aspectsdriver unloaderindustrial injurypermanent disability advancesattorney's fee
References
Case No. ADJ7548997, ADJ7549026
Regular
Jan 15, 2016

KAREN BRESSON vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, VONS GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted UPS's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCAB clarified that the applicant's prior Compromise and Release (C&R) with Vons Grocery Company in Case No. ADJ7549026 did not settle her claim against UPS in Case No. ADJ7548997, despite broad language in an addendum. This interpretation is based on the C&R specifically listing only Vons and a distinct date of injury period, and a clause limiting the settlement to those specified terms. All other issues, including AOE/COE injury, medical treatment, and apportionment, remain to be decided at the trial level.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAOE/COECompromise and ReleaseC&RCumulative TraumaCTSuccessive InjuriesContribution
References
Case No. ADJ11073243
Regular
Aug 01, 2018

MARTINA RODRIGUEZ OCOTECATL vs. GROLINK PLANT COMPANY, INC., HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRIES SELF INSURED GROUP, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order declaring the case moot due to a settlement. The Board granted removal on its own motion to address whether the applicant's claim against Household Industries Self Insured Group was actually settled by the Compromise and Release (C&R). The Board found the WCJ's order was not a final decision and rescinded it. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine the scope of the C&R and its impact on the claim against Household Industries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalCompromise and ReleaseApplicant's AttorneySelf-Insured EmployerInjury ClaimCumulative InjuryDeclarations of Readiness to Proceed
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,548 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