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. 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. 2018 NY Slip Op 08744
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

Nava-Juarez v. Mosholu Fieldston Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Eusebio Nava-Juarez sought partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim after falling from a shifting ladder while painting a building. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order and granted the plaintiff's motion. The court found that the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through his testimony and a coworker's affidavit. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as their reliance on a mistranslated C-3 report, which stated the plaintiff fell down stairs, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court clarified that the defendants did not prove the plaintiff was the source of the inaccurate information or provide a competent translator. Both Mosholu Fieldston Realty, LLC as the fee owner, and Mosholu Enterprises as the tenant, were found liable under the Labor Law.

Ladder accidentsummary judgmentLabor LawhearsaymistranslationC-3 reportworker's compensationpremises liabilityappellate reviewevidentiary standards
References
6
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. ADJ7745791, ADJ7745809
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

JUAN NAVA vs. OWENS CORNING, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous order that intended to dismiss MD Tox Laboratories' lien. The WCAB found that MD Tox Laboratories had not actually filed a lien in the subject cases, nor were they a party at the time of the lien conference, thus rendering the dismissal order invalid. Since no lien was filed, MD Tox Laboratories was not subject to lien activation fees or obligated to appear at the conference. The WCAB clarified that MD Tox Laboratories may file a lien if it is still timely and accompanied by the proper fees.

MD Tox LaboratoriesPetition for Reconsiderationlien activation feelien conferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardnonpartyElectronic Adjudication Management Systemlien claimantLabor CodeWCAB Rule
References
1
Case No. ADJ10981446, ADJ10981459
Regular
Jun 24, 2019

NAVA TOMER-EZRA vs. TARZANA TREATMENT CENTERS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision grants reconsideration and amends a prior ruling. The Board affirms the original decision but corrects findings of fact regarding the applicant's permanent and stationary date and the resulting permanent disability. The Board emphasizes deferring to the WCJ's credibility determinations and the substantial evidence rule for medical opinions. Ultimately, the applicant was found to have a 33% permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility determinationssubstantial evidencephysician's opinionclerical errorpermanent disabilityindemnityweekly rate
References
3
Case No. ADJ3002639 (LAO 0881928)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

MIGUEL NAVA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant's industrial injury to his spine and knees. The defendant sought reconsideration of a decision that allowed reimbursement for non-MPN providers before November 28, 2008. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant was bound to select an MPN physician as of his March 11, 2008 deposition stipulation. Therefore, non-MPN services rendered after March 11, 2008, are not compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNBarrett Business ServicesCorVel MPNLien ClaimantIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryKnee InjuryReconsideration
References
2
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. ADJ8456265
Regular
Sep 22, 2014

HILDEBERTO NAVA CRUZ vs. AGUILAR FARMING, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This ensures a comprehensive understanding of the record and enables the Board to issue a just decision. Pending the new decision, all communications must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners and not with any district office or e-filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationADJ8456265Fresno District OfficeOpinion and OrderStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesComplete understanding of the recordJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedings
References
0
Case No. LAO 766181
Regular
Aug 05, 2008

MARIA NAVA vs. NORMAN'S ORCHIDS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant seeking to reopen her award for new and further disability. The defendant argued the petition to reopen was untimely filed. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the petition was timely filed and that the defendant waived or was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense due to its actions.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardNew and Further DisabilityPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsJurisdictionWaiverEstoppelSuperior National Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationLabor Code Section 5410
References
16
Case No. ADJ8921826
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

ELVIA VELAZQUEZ NAVA vs. RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, finding sufficient grounds for a change of venue. The venue was transferred to the Pomona district office due to the significant inconvenience and expense for four key witnesses residing near Pomona who would testify regarding the applicant's employment and injury notification defense. This decision acknowledges that while the initial petition lacked specific street addresses, the cumulative hardship on witnesses justified the venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemoval on Board MotionDecision After RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6Presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOrder Denying Petition for Change of VenueIndustrial cumulative trauma injuryApplicant's attorney's principal place of business
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15 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