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. ADJ3670273 (STK 0188965)
Regular
Dec 27, 2013

ROBERT CRANE vs. SMT RESOURCE/GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves a request for supplemental attorney's fees for services rendered in appealing a workers' compensation decision. The Court of Appeal previously remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to determine reasonable fees for the applicant's attorney. The applicant's attorney requested $7,652.00 for 19.13 hours of work at $400 per hour. The WCAB found this amount reasonable and awarded it to the applicant's attorneys, Rockwell, Kelly & Duarte, LLP.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealSupplemental Attorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Appellate ServicesReasonable Attorney FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewTime SpentHourly Rate
References
Case No. ADJ7263446
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

ANGELLA AREBAMEN vs. KELLY SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kelly Services' petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant was terminated by Kelly Services, via its client Neutrogena's policy, for late reporting of her industrial injury. The Board found that terminating an employee for reporting an injury, even if violating a client's policy, constitutes unlawful discrimination. Consequently, Kelly Services was affirmed to have violated section 132a and was subject to the imposed $10,000 penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationindustrial injurypermanent disabilityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderadministrative penaltyspecial employergeneral employer
References
Case No. ADJ1631052 (ANA 0405611)
Regular
Oct 29, 2019

LUISA ISABEL RODRIGUEZ vs. KELLY SERVICES

This case concerns Kelly Services' challenge to lien claims filed by Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center and Technical Surgery Support. Kelly Services argued that the lien claimants' declarations, signed by Patrick Christoff, were untimely and that Mr. Christoff lacked personal knowledge of the services billed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, ruling that the timeliness issue was waived as it was not raised at trial. The Board found Mr. Christoff competent to sign the declarations, relying on his extensive experience reviewing medical reports and billing, and the fact that the underlying medical reports were also signed under penalty of perjury.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)declarant competencypersonal knowledgelien claimantsKelly ServicesESISComprehensive Outpatient Surgery CenterTechnical Surgery SupportFindings of FactReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9 657673, ADJ9 632441, ADJ9 697740, ADJ9 832297, ADJ9 834527, ADJ9 842328, ADJ9 919901, ADJ9 919978
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

KELLY FINN vs. OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kelly Finn's Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal." The petition failed to meet the legal requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852, which mandate specific details regarding grounds, evidence, and legal principles. The WCAB found the petition lacked specific references to the record and the evidence it relied upon.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationskeletal petitionLabor Code section 5902WCAB Rulesmaterial evidencespecific references to the recordprinciples of lawdeny or dismissWCJ report
References
Case No. RDG 0120327
Regular
Nov 01, 2007

KELLY LANGLEY vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the applicant is Kelly Langley and the defendant is the County of Nevada. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's decision of September 17, 2007, with an amendment. The amendment specifically allows applicant's Exhibits 1, 2, 8, and 9 to be admitted into evidence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDKELLY LANGLEYCOUNTY OF NEVADACLAIMS MANAGEMENTINC.RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AMENDEDEVIDENCE ADMITTEDEXHIBITS 1 2 8 9
References
Case No. ADJ16528931
Regular
Apr 25, 2025

Marisa Kelly vs. Sacramento County Child Protective Services, PSI, County of Sacramento

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders (F&O) issued on February 5, 2025, which found that the applicant, Marisa Kelly, sustained a work-related psychiatric injury. The defendant contended that the medical evidence supporting this finding, specifically from the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), was not substantial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and the WCJ's report, determined that the PQME's reasoning clearly supported the causation of the applicant's temporary disability and need for medical treatment. The Board concluded that the PQME's use of 'exacerbation' instead of 'aggravation' was immaterial, and therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSacramento County Child Protective ServicesMarisa KellyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Awards and OrdersInjury Arising Out of and Occurring in the Course of EmploymentAOE/COEPsycheMedical EvidencePanel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ9602695
Regular
Sep 26, 2019

KELLY MULDROW vs. AMS OUTSOURCING/STAFFCHEX, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ULLICO, SEDGWICK CMS, SENBA USA, INC., MITSUI SUMITOMO

This case concerns applicant Kelly Muldrow's claim for psychiatric injury stemming from her employment. The primary dispute revolves around the applicability of Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which generally requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, remanding the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This is because the prior ruling improperly deferred the threshold issue of section 3208.3(d)'s applicability without fully adjudicating it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKelly MuldrowAMS OutsourcingStaffchexCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAUllicoSedgwick CMSSenba USAMitsui Sumitomo
References
Case No. ADJ4535281 STK 0206039
Regular
Oct 22, 2014

TONI MATTICE vs. NAMM CALIFORNIA-AVETA HEALTH, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant regarding a prior decision. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and an initial review indicating the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB seeks to achieve a complete understanding of the record for a just decision. All future filings in this case must be submitted in writing to the Office of the Commissioners.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardNAMM California-Aveta HealthZurich Insurance CompanyAugust 12014Statutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
Case No. ADJ8104549
Regular
Jul 05, 2017

MICHAEL KELLY vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves Michael Kelly seeking benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) based on a pre-existing disability that allegedly combined with his 2011 shoulder injury to create permanent total disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kelly's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding. The Board found that the medical evidence Kelly relied upon was not substantial, particularly regarding his alleged pre-existing "labor disabling" condition. The Board concluded that the opinions of certain medical evaluators constituted impermissible retroactive prophylactic work restrictions, as Kelly's own account of his abilities at the time of injury contradicted their findings.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPermanent Partial DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorPre-existing DisabilityLabor DisablingRatable Permanent DisabilityRetroactive Prophylactic Work RestrictionApportionmentWCJ Report and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ4112217 (ANA 0344909)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

ANGEL MARTINEZ vs. KELLY SERVICES; CNA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Angel Martinez's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on October 25, 2012, significantly after Martinez admits having notice of the WCJ's March 8, 2012, Findings and Award on July 5, 2012. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within twenty days of notice, with limited extensions for mailing. This jurisdictional deadline was not met, thus precluding the Board from granting the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedLabor Code section 5903WCAB Rule 10507JurisdictionalFindings and AwardNoticeWCJ's decisionADJ4112217
References
Showing 1-10 of 74 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