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. OAK 0236748, OAK 0330494, OAK 0330495
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

REINA CABEZAS vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA By AIG/TRISTAR, Permissibly Self-Insured By OCTAGON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that the applicant sustained cumulative trauma injuries to her right upper extremity, cervical spine, and psyche. The judge's report, which the Board incorporated, explained that it relied on one physician's opinion as substantial evidence and found the defendant's arguments unpersuasive on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReina CabezasCounty of AlamedaAIG/TristarOctagonPermissibly Self-InsuredCumulative TraumaRight Upper ExtremityCervical SpinePsyche
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reina v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Ms. Reina, a worker, sustained a back injury on April 20, 1977, preventing her from performing her job due to continuous pain. A jury found her to have total and permanent incapacity, and the trial court rendered judgment in her favor against General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed this judgment, citing insufficient evidence for total and permanent incapacity. The Supreme Court of Texas, however, disagreed with the Court of Civil Appeals, holding that the jury could reasonably infer total and permanent incapacity from circumstantial lay evidence, even if contradicted by medical experts. The Court also found that the exclusion of certain deposition testimony as cross-examination by the trial court was harmless error, as the testimony was cumulative. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationTotal and Permanent IncapacitySufficiency of EvidenceLay Witness TestimonyMedical EvidenceCumulative EvidenceHarmless ErrorTrial Court JudgmentCourt of Civil Appeals ReversalSupreme Court Affirmation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Rifkin

Plaintiff Reina Ramirez brought an action against Terry and Leah Rifkin alleging failure to pay wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred and that plaintiff did not perform overtime work. The court denied summary judgment on the FLSA overtime claims and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the statute of limitations, willfulness, and equitable tolling, as well as the amount of time plaintiff worked. However, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on federal and state minimum wage claims from mid-2003 to December 8, 2005, based on the plaintiff's concession.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York State Labor LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingOvertime PayMinimum WageDomestic WorkerEmployment LawRecord Keeping
References
43
Case No. ADJ10833548
Regular
May 22, 2018

REINA CHUR vs. DOUGLAS EMMETT MANAGEMENT, LLC, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Reina Chur's petition for removal, overturning an order denying her request to change venue. The Board found good cause to transfer the case from Marina Del Rey to Los Angeles, citing financial hardship, continuity of records, and the fact that the applicant's attorney's office is located in Los Angeles. This decision aims to consolidate related claims for judicial economy and convenience, as the applicant has two other active cases against the same employer filed in the Los Angeles district office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6Good CauseFinancial HardshipContinuity of RecordSelection of AttorneyJudicial EconomyWCABOrder Denying Change of Venue
References
2
Case No. ADJ9032702
Regular
Jun 14, 2019

EUSEBIO CABEZAS vs. SIX STAR CUSTOM CHOPPING, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Eusebio Cabezas' petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed (received by the WCAB) within 25 days of the served decision, with specific rules for extensions. The WCAB found that the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original decision, rendering it jurisdictionally barred. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the untimely petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional LimitAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor CodeWCJ Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ11844639
Regular
Apr 08, 2019

REINA HERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely, as it was filed after the jurisdictional deadline. The arbitrator's decision was issued on October 15, 2018, making the filing deadline November 9, 2018. Since the petition was filed on November 14, 2018, it was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for reconsiderationuntimelyjurisdictionalvacatedismissLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.arbitratorservicemail
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Reina

General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., a workers' compensation carrier, appealed a judgment awarding plaintiff $28,000 for total and permanent incapacity after a jury finding. The court found insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of total and permanent incapacity, as plaintiff's own testimony and hearsay from her physician were deemed inadequate. Additionally, the trial judge erred by not permitting the defendant to cross-examine plaintiff's physician, Dr. Sigler, using deposition testimony without adopting him as their own witness. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppealTotal Permanent IncapacityHearsay EvidenceCross-ExaminationDeposition TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceReversible ErrorTexas LawSufficiency of Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ1988796 (OXN 0126081) ADJ4225705 (OXN 0126083)
Regular
May 09, 2012

JULIE ANN CABEZA vs. MARY HEALTH OF THE SICK, REDLAND INSURANCE

Attorney Hannan petitioned to disqualify WCJ Glass based on allegations of a conspiracy with other WCJs to penalize her and her clients. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding insufficient specific facts and evidence to support the claims of bias. Hannan failed to provide required witness declarations and her allegations largely repeated prior contentions. The Board concluded the petition was untimely and lacked the necessary evidentiary support for disqualification.

Petition for disqualificationWCJ biasconspiracy allegationslien claimantattorney misconducttimely filingevidencejudicial impartialityADA accommodationwitness declarations
References
6
Case No. RIV 59277
Regular
Aug 07, 2007

REINA GUERRA vs. VALLEY CHRISTIAN HOME, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's second petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed, despite the defendant's claim of subsequent verification. The defendant's initial petition was dismissed for lack of verification, and their subsequent attempt to correct this issue was filed beyond the jurisdictional 25-day deadline. Furthermore, the petition was improperly filed with a district office instead of directly with the Appeals Board Reconsideration Unit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified petitionProof of serviceTimelinessJurisdictionalDismissalRule 10840Labor Code 5903Code Civil Procedure 1013
References
2
Case No. MON 0299702 MON 0313489
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

REINA RIVERA vs. LSG SKY CHEFS, INC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, LSG Sky Chefs, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLSG Sky ChefsInc.Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.Case NumberDecision After ReconsiderationReconsideration UnitStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual Issues
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 16 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