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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galarza v. American Home Assurance Co.

Lorri Galarza sued her employer, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), alleging workplace sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Executive Law. Galarza claimed a co-worker, Marc Kaplan, sexually harassed her, and that she was fired after reporting the harassment to management. AHAC moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a reasonable complaint procedure and that Galarza's termination was due to poor job performance and insubordination, not retaliation. The court found that AHAC provided a reasonable avenue for complaint and made diligent efforts to investigate. Furthermore, the court concluded that Galarza failed to demonstrate that AHAC's stated reasons for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, AHAC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Galarza's claims.

sexual harassmentretaliatory dischargeTitle VIIsummary judgmenthostile work environmentemployee conductperformance deficienciesdiscrimination claimsfederal civil procedure
References
21
Case No. ADJ9345744; ADJ9345745
Regular
Mar 07, 2015

ROSALIO GALARZA vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision were issued. The Board also declined to address the applicant's counsel's request for sanctions, advising it be pursued at the trial level.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRosalio GalarzaBimbo Bakeries USAInc.ACE American Insurance CompanyADJ9345744ADJ9345745Order Denying Petition for RemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
3
Case No. ADJ9012109
Regular
Jun 12, 2014

ROSALIO NAVA vs. JOSEPH GALLO CATTLE COMPANY, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Removal in the case of *Rosalio Nava v. Joseph Gallo Cattle Company; Seabright Insurance Company*. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as required by WCAB Rule 10843. Consequently, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental PetitionDenying RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportApplicantDefendant
References
1
Case No. ADJ8832276
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

ROSALIO MARIN vs. BUTLER BOX & STAKE, INC.; ICW GROUP/EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rosalio Marin's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found Marin's testimony regarding his job duties and cumulative trauma injury to be non-credible. While the Board acknowledged the claim was presumed compensable under Labor Code section 5402, it found this presumption had been rebutted by the evidence presented. The judge's credibility findings, crucial in such cases, were given significant weight.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.cumulative traumaLabor Code section 5402presumed compensablerebuttable presumptionindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ8876878
Regular
Sep 17, 2015

ROSALIO AMBRIZ CARRANZA vs. SATICOY LEMON ASSOCIATION, YORK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the lien claimant was entitled to requested medical documents to prove their claim, and that the defendant's objections lacked merit and failed to show grounds for removal. Therefore, the petition was denied as the applicant's case was resolved, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if issues arose later.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationuntimelyZA Managementlien claimantAOE/COE
References
3
Case No. ADJ8307394
Regular
Nov 16, 2015

ROSALIO ESPARZA-SALAS vs. INTERAMERICAN MOTOR CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves an applicant appealing a decision awarding a lien for the Employment Development Department (EDD). The applicant argued EDD failed to prove its lien was duplicative of permanent disability benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further examine the issue. The Board affirmed the original award but deferred the EDD lien, remanding the case for further proceedings to develop evidence on proper notice and potential duplicate payments.

ROSALIO ESPARZA-SALASINTERAMERICAN MOTOR CORPORATIONTRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICAADJ8307394OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONEmployment Development Department (EDD)lienpermanent disability awardduplicative benefitsMedical Provider Network
References
3
Case No. ADJ4257489 (VNO 0545109) ADJ1819339 (VNO 0545111)
Regular
Apr 27, 2009

LUZ GALARZA vs. ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN CARE OF BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought these actions after the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) continued the trial to await a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (Panel QME) chiropractic report. The defendant argued prejudice and due process violations regarding a psychiatric evaluation, but the Board found no final order was issued and no substantial prejudice warranted removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's interlocutory procedural order allowing discovery to continue and found no error in the continuation of the trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorChiropracticsPsychiatric EvaluationInterlocutory Procedural OrdersSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
7
Case No. ADJ10243783
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

PEDRO GALARZA SALAZAR vs. HOMEY PET STATION, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE CO., FARMERS INSURANCE CO.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a case dismissed for the applicant's attorney's failure to appear at a priority conference and respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. Although the attorney did not appear at the scheduled time, he did appear later that morning and addressed the WCJ. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the WCJ should have treated the applicant's subsequent appearance as an objection and scheduled a hearing, rather than dismissing the case.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CasePriority ConferenceNotice of Intent to DismissFailure to AppearWCJApplicant's AttorneyMinutes of HearingObjection
References
1
Showing 1-8 of 8 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