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. ADJ1454075
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

JOSE FONSECA vs. MIKE SANDOVAL CONCRETE, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's award of sanctions and costs against them. While the defendant delayed payment of a lien claimant's interpreter fee, the Board found insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay or bad-faith tactics. The lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was denied, and the Board emphasized the need for parties to resolve future disputes through communication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and AwardSanctionCostsLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5813Bad FaithWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ991157
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

GLENDA STAFFORD vs. ARMORED TRANSPORT, ESIS SOUTHFIELD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed a prior decision finding the decedent's suicide compensable. The Board determined that the employer's investigation into missing funds, which led to the suicide, constituted a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). Therefore, compensation for the suicide is barred, and the applicant is entitled to take nothing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSuicideIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitDependentPersonnel ActionGood Faith InvestigationIrresistible ImpulseLabor Code Section 3208.3(h)Psychiatric Injury
References
Case No. ADJ1323538 (SAC 0367325)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

BRUCE LOCKWOOD vs. C.C. MEYERS, INC., C.C. MEYERS

This case involves defendant C.C. Meyers, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of a prior Board decision finding serious and willful misconduct. The Board had previously reversed a judge's ruling, finding the employer negligent for failing to provide a spotter for an excavator. The defendant argues there's no evidence a spotter was required or would have prevented the injury. The Board is granting reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues involved.

Serious and willful misconductproximate causeindustrial injuryemployer negligencesafety ordersexcavator operatorspotterforemanhazardous conditionpetition for reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ4213823 (AHM 01440-4)
Regular
Jun 02, 2010

RODOLFO PLASCENCIA (Deceased), TERESA PLASCENCIA (Widow) vs. LOS ANGELES DODGERS, ACE USA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior award, ruling that applicant Rodolfo Plascencia's neck injury sustained from a fall was not compensable. The Board found that the applicant's blood alcohol level of .187% was a material and substantial cause of his fall, thus barring compensation under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The majority credited expert testimony indicating the intoxication impaired judgment and physical ability, making it the probable cause of the fall in the absence of other evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof and that reasonable doubt should favor the employee, citing lack of evidence for intoxication being the sole cause and the possibility of other fall factors.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)intoxication defensematerial and substantial factorblood alcohol level.187%addiction substance abuse expertwaiver of objectioncommon knowledgeslip and fallreasonable inferences
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. ADJ4430352 (SFO 0512000)
Regular
Apr 14, 2013

ERNESTO LEDESMA vs. APOLLO BATH & DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYERS INSURANCE GROUP

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, reversing the WCJ's denial of their request to set aside prior orders. While the defendant's procedural arguments regarding due process were not reached, the Board agreed that a provision in the prior order allowing parties to obtain their own QME reports was statutorily unjustified. The Board amended the prior orders to delete this provision and ordered the Medical Unit to issue QME panels, returning the matter for further proceedings.

Petition for removalEx parteDue processQME panelMedical UnitAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Ultra viresWCJLabor Code section 4062.2WCAB Rule 10280
References
Case No. ADJ4569342 (ANA358543)
Regular
Jul 09, 2010

ROSALIA SANDOVAL vs. UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior order finding that lien claims for medical services by Dr. Akbarpour and Holt Chiropractic were reimbursable. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's report established the services were not medically reasonable or necessary for the applicant's industrial injury. Additionally, the claimed amounts were deemed excessive and unsubstantiated by the lien claimants. Therefore, the Board ordered that the lien claimants take nothing by way of their claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerMedical Treatment ReasonablenessMedical Treatment NecessityLien ClaimantsDiagnostic TestingChiropractic ServicesExcessive FeesIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ870023 (WCK 69873)
Regular
Nov 21, 2008

Denis Mendieta vs. COPENHAGEN HOUSE OF DANISH, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board reversed an award of attorney's fees, finding that Labor Code section 4064(c) did not apply because the fees were incurred pursuing a petition to reopen, not in connection with the initial stipulated award. The court clarified that a stipulated award, even if treated as an application for certain purposes, does not qualify for the employer-paid attorney's fees under section 4064(c) when the employee later hires counsel to reopen the claim. Therefore, the applicant is responsible for his own attorney's fees for the petition to reopen.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4064(c)Award of Attorney's FeeWCJstipulated awardcommutationpetition to reopennew and further disabilitycompromise and releaseunrepresented employee
References
Case No. ADJ401125 (LAO 0843257)
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

ORETHA BOYD vs. SERVICE CRAFT LOGISTICS, COLONIAL RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse the finding of temporary total disability and the need for future medical treatment for the applicant's heart condition and hypertension. The Board found insufficient substantial medical evidence to support that these pre-existing conditions, aggravated by work stressors, caused the claimed period of disability. Applicant's prior carpal tunnel injury and its ongoing treatment were identified as the primary cause of her absence from work. The award was modified to remove temporary disability and future medical treatment for the heart/hypertension, and attorney fees were adjusted accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOretha BoydService Craft LogisticsColonial RiskAmended Findings and Awardindustrial injuryheart conditionhypertensiondiabetestemporary total disability
References
Case No. ADJ7776766
Regular
Mar 22, 2012

ABELARDO MORALES vs. EVANGELINA NICHOLAS, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior award. The Board found the applicant was not an employee under Labor Code sections 3351(d) and 3352(h) because his work as a patio builder and roof repairer was considered incidental to the ownership and use of a dwelling, and he worked less than 52 hours for the homeowner. Therefore, the applicant was excluded from workers' compensation coverage.

Labor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)incidental to dwelling usehomeowner employee exclusioncasual or minor activityremodeling workresidential dwellingworkers' compensation schemePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
Showing 1-10 of 593 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