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. RDG 116853; RDG 116854; RDG 116855; RDG 116856; RDG 122064
Regular
Sep 13, 2007

GARY STODDARD vs. NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, which found no employer discrimination under Labor Code § 132a. However, the Board amended the order to shift $\$500$ in sanctions from the defendant employer to its defense counsel, Bradford & Barthel, for their conduct prior to and during trial. The applicant's contention of discrimination was otherwise rejected.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLabor Code § 132aantidiscriminationreconsiderationsanctionsWCJFindings and OrderOrder No. 5Bradford & Bartheltrial activities
References
0
Case No. RDG 0095368; RDG 0095369; RDG 0095573; RDG 0126270
Regular
Sep 25, 2007

HENRY PHILLIPE vs. GOTTSCHALKS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow reimbursement for the applicant's vocational expert fees, reversing the WCJ's decision. The Board found it reasonable for the applicant to hire his own vocational expert to rebut the defendant's expert, especially given the passage of time since the original vocational feasibility report. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant's attorney for the $1,075.00 vocational expert cost.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationExpert Witness FeesVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (QRR)LeBoeuf argumentAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Permanent DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ3447268 (RDG 0130805)
Regular
Mar 08, 2010

BRUCE MCCUNE vs. SENTRY PLUMBING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding that Bruce McCune sustained a cumulative industrial injury to his bilateral knees. The Board found the claim was not barred as a post-termination claim because pre-termination medical records showed the injury, nor was it time-barred as the applicant demonstrated disability and knowledge of industrial causation within the limitations period. The Board did, however, amend the original award to explicitly state McCune did not sustain injury to his back and lower extremities. Consequently, the applicant is awarded all reasonable and necessary benefits for the knee injury.

Cumulative TraumaPost-Termination ClaimStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 5412Compensable DisabilityKnowledge of Industrial CausationPre-Termination Medical RecordsMeniscal TearsChondromalacia Patella
References
6
Case No. ADJ3429954 (RDG 0130970) ADJ522968 (RDG 0130844) ADJ770576 (RDG 0130845)
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

LORETTA CLEMENTS vs. SISKIYOU JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted by KEENAN ASSOCIATES RANCHO CORDOVA

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the Board initially issued a notice to impose sanctions on the defendant's attorneys for filing a potentially frivolous petition for reconsideration. The defendant's attorney objected, arguing the petition was intended to clarify the date of injury. While the Board found the attorney's explanation ambiguous, they agreed the petition was not frivolous. Consequently, the Board withdrew its notice of intention to impose sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsFrivolous PetitionReconsiderationDate of InjuryClarify FindingsDecision After RemovalWithdrawn NoticeLabor Code Section 5310
References
0
Case No. ADJ1775896 (RDG 0101688) ADJ2201648 (RDG 0101689) ADJ2010679 (RDG 0104042)
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

RICHARD SEILER vs. CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petitions for recusal and disqualification of the judge. These petitions stemmed from the applicant's dissatisfaction with the judge's rulings on medical treatment, specifically testosterone therapy, and the judge's handling of Qualified Medical Evaluator appointments. The Board found the judge's prior decisions were appropriately made and that the applicant's actions delayed resolution of the testosterone issue. The applicant's proper recourse for aggrieved orders was reconsideration, not the instant petitions.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationRecusalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Expedited HearingTestosterone TreatmentFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
Case No. ADJ763837 (RDG 0127177) ADJ3894868 (RDG 0129247) ADJ2280504 (RDG 0129248)
Regular
Mar 29, 2011

JONI LAMKIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding applicant sustained three industrial injuries. The Board found the original decision flawed due to inadequate reasoning by the judge and the Qualified Medical Examiner regarding disability ratings under *Almaraz/Guzman*. The Court rescinded the prior order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, citing insufficient explanation for deviation from AMA Guides and a lack of clear findings on separate injuries. This decision mandates that future reports and awards must provide detailed justifications for disability ratings and clearly delineate findings for distinct injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJoni LamkinDepartment of TransportationState Compensation Insurance FundADJ763837ADJ3894868ADJ2280504ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. ADJ4612779 (RDG 0113043), ADJ1750033 (RDG 0129403), ADJ4527180 (RDG 0129951)
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

JUAN VILLALOBOS vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves appeals regarding the statute of limitations for applicant Juan Villalobos's workers' compensation claims against Coca Cola Bottling Company. The Board affirmed the lower judge's decision that claims ADJ4527180 and ADJ1750033 were not barred by the statute of limitations. This was based on the employer's failure to provide proper notice of potential benefits, which tolled the statute, and the employer's inability to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his rights. The Board found the employer's amended petitions for reconsideration procedurally acceptable, but ultimately affirmed the original findings on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsCumulative InjuryPetition to StrikeVerified PetitionActual KnowledgeLabor Code Section 5401(a)Tolling
References
7
Case No. RDG 0119112 RDG 0119113
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

CHARLES PINEDA vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by applicant Charles Pineda against his employer and their insurers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding it was improperly filed against interlocutory orders that did not determine substantive rights. The Board also denied the petition for removal, agreeing with the WCJ's report that no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate Remedy
References
11
Case No. RDG 0119112, RDG 0119113
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

CHARLES D. PINEDA vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD, SEDGWICK CLAIMS SERVICES, BAKERSFIELD HEALTH DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final procedural order denying a stay and continuance. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances or showing of significant prejudice. The case will return to the trial level to proceed with the scheduled trial.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeMinute OrderTrial DateStay of ProceedingsChange of VenueConflicts of InterestVexatious LitigantInterlocutory Order
References
5
Case No. RDG 0108689, RDG 0108864
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

JEFF RUSHING vs. HOBBIE CHEVROLET CADILLAC, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY by GAB ROBINS, NA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SENTRY INSURANCE

This case involves appeals from a workers' compensation award for spine and lower extremity injuries. The prior award granted 55% permanent disability jointly against two insurers, apportioned by injury date. The Appeals Board rescinded the award, finding the WCJ erred by issuing a joint award after legislative changes requiring apportionment based on causation. The matter is returned to the WCJ for a new decision applying current legal standards for apportionment and joint awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific injuryCumulative traumaSpine injuryLeft lower extremity injuryPermanent disabilityApportionmentLiabilityCalifornia IndemnitySentry Insurance
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 98 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