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. ADJ8011399 ADJ8967612 ADJ8967613
Regular
Feb 19, 2014

ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, Permissibly SelfInsured

This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees for applicant's attorney arising from deposition conduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision awarding attorney's fees. The Board found that while the applicant's attorney was entitled to fees under Labor Code section 5710(b)(4), the conduct of both attorneys during a deposition was unprofessional. The WCAB ultimately affirmed the award of attorney's fees but also addressed the attorneys' unprofessional conduct.

Deposition attorney's feesLabor Code section 5710(b)(4)Unprofessional conductCompromise and releaseIndustrial injuryTeam memberWCJ decisionPetition for removalMedical record developmentAgreed medical evaluator (AME)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. VNO 0433931
Regular
Jan 18, 2008

ROLAND FREEMAN vs. THE COMMUNITY YOUTH SPORTS & ARTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied a petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice from the judge's actions on evidence admission. However, the petition for disqualification was granted due to the judge's unprofessional and biased comments to defense counsel and an ex parte discussion with a lien claimant regarding the case's potential outcome. The case will be reassigned to a different judge for further proceedings.

WCABRemovalDisqualificationWCJBiasEx Parte CommunicationBurden of ProofLien ClaimantAdmission of EvidenceOffer of Proof
References
4
Case No. OAK 263916
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

JEFFREY HONEYWELL vs. SAFEWAY STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied lien claimant Bay Surgery Center's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision to award partial payment for medical services. The Board also dismissed Safeway Stores' petition for reconsideration as untimely filed. Additionally, the Board admonished the lien claimant's representative for unprofessional comments made about the judge.

Bay Surgery Centerdiscographypump proceduresitemized billsLabor Code section 4603.2substantial evidencereasonableness of chargespenalty assessmentpenalty for unreasonable delayfictitious name permit
References
5
Case No. ADJ7553654, ADJ7550664
Regular
May 16, 2016

JOSE REYES vs. WESTERN LIGHTWAVE, AIG

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for disqualification filed in the case of Jose Reyes v. Western Lightwave; AIG. The Board adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in its decision. While the WCAB denied the disqualification, it noted with concern allegations of unprofessional conduct by the applicant's former attorney and reminded all participants of their duty to act professionally.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ ReportUnprofessional ConductUncivil ConductApplicant's AttorneyDuty to Act ProfessionallyCourteous ConductWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDenied Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ950271 (SBR 0337888) ADJ2677930 (SBR 0308933) ADJ4439180 (SBR 0330322) ADJ340658 (SBR 0282268)
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

MARTHA M. ALLEN vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration but denied their petition for removal and disqualification. The Board clarified that the WCJ did not exclude defense medical reports but found them unpersuasive, and noted that the defendant's allegations against the WCJ were unprofessional. The Board amended the award to defer the issue of temporary disability underpayment in ADJ4439180, acknowledging it likely stemmed from a mistaken stipulation, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationFurther Development of the RecordTemporary Disability IndemnitySelf-Procured Medical TreatmentAverage Weekly EarningsQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code Section 5701Labor Code Section 5502(e)(3)
References
4
Case No. ADJ1070549 (SAC 0354129)
Regular
Sep 01, 2010

LISA ROGERS vs. NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES/ MERRYHILL; CHUBB GROUP for FEDERAL INSURANCE

Applicant Lisa Rogers filed a letter requesting the disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, alleging unprofessional conduct and a conflict of interest. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this letter as a petition for disqualification. However, the WCAB dismissed the petition because it was unverified, not properly served on all parties, and failed to comply with procedural requirements. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the petition for disqualification dismissed.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10844WCAB Rule 10850Labor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Unrepresented ApplicantRude and UnprofessionalConflict of InterestPresiding Judge Joel HarterAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ6999645
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

SANDY DROUIN vs. HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order denying a deposition was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their request to compel a deposition due to insufficient provision for travel expenses. The Board noted unprofessional conduct by both attorneys.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition to Compel AttendanceDeposition CostsTransportation ExpensesAirline E-TicketTravel ExpensesFinal OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable Harm
References
5
Case No. ADJ6841263
Regular
Apr 22, 2014

SHERYL WILLIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a denial for a lightweight mobility scooter. The applicant argued the administrative director's determination was plainly erroneous and that the relevant Labor Code sections were unconstitutional. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the applicant failed to raise new issues or challenge constitutionality within their power. The Board also admonished both parties' counsel for unprofessional conduct.

Labor Code Section 4610.6Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorIndependent Medical ReviewLightweight Mobility ScooterLabor Code Section 4600Plainly Erroneous Finding of FactBias on Basis of DisabilityConstitutional ChallengeScope of Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ 9938554
Regular
May 02, 2016

PIK SAN CHAN vs. KOI PALACE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, stated the applicant's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The applicant's attorney was admonished for unprofessional comments.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdequate Remedy
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 49 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