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. ADJ8075085
Regular
Oct 28, 2016

SUSANA BURNETT vs. EL MONTE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Burnett v. El Monte City School District. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning from the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied based on the existing record and the WCJ's findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDenial of ReconsiderationEL MONTE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTSUSANA BURNETTADJ8075085
References
Case No. ADJ10316246
Regular
Aug 03, 2016

SUSANA BERNAL vs. HAGGEN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Susana Bernal's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and the petition for automatic reassignment was inapplicable to a priority conference. The applicant's request for disqualification of the WCJ was also deemed improper.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAutomatic ReassignmentWCAB Rule 10453Disqualification of WCJPriority ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness
References
Case No. ADJ4636269
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

JOSEPH VALDEZ vs. SUSANA WOODS dba SIMI VALLEY MOBILE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration based on the judge's report. The judge found the applicant lacked credibility due to significant inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the injury mechanism and his employer's response. Furthermore, the judge determined the applicant was not employed on the date of the alleged injury, a critical prerequisite for a workers' compensation claim. The Board adopted the judge's findings and incorporated the report's reasoning into its decision.

ADJ4636269SUSANA WOODS dba SIMI VALLEY MOBILESTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.credibilityDr. CapenSouthern California Orthopedic Institute
References
Case No. ADJ9999051
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

SUSANA VELAZQUEZ vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves Susana Velazquez's petition for reconsideration after her claim for work-related injury against the San Diego Unified School District was denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The WCJ found Velazquez's testimony not credible, citing witness testimony and evidence that she left work for personal reasons and had performance issues with a co-worker. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination due to observing the witnesses' demeanor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.employment injurycourse of employmentchoking incidentwitness testimonyapplicant credibilitypoor performance
References
Case No. ADJ11079754; ADJ10653838; ADJ10975554
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

SUSANA RESENDIZ MORALES vs. COAST SEAFOOD COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Susana Resendiz Morales sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Orders (F&O) issued on June 18, 2025, which found no new and further disability from her prior injuries with Coast Seafood Company and dismissed her Petitions for New and Further Disability. Applicant contended the WCJ did not adequately consider her mental health evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, concluding that any new and further disability, including mental health issues, was attributable to a subsequent injury with a different employer. Consequently, the WCAB denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

ADJ11079754ADJ10653838ADJ10975554Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersNew and Further DisabilityFuture Medical CareWCJ ReportLabor Code Section 5909Transmission Date
References
Case No. ADJ6824732
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

SHEILA CORREIA, KENNETH BURNETT (Deceased) vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a deceased worker, Kenneth Burnett, diagnosed with mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. The sole issue was determining the date of last injurious exposure to establish liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the judge's decision. The judge found the applicant's medical expert's opinion on a five to ten-year latency period to be more persuasive than the defendant's expert's twenty-year period. This led to a finding that the decedent's last injurious asbestos exposure occurred between 1996 and 2001, during his employment with Verizon.

MesotheliomaLatency PeriodAsbestos ExposureDate of Last Injurious ExposureLC §5500.5LC §5412Verizon CommunicationsSedgwick Claims Management ServicesDr. LurosDr. Raybin
References
Case No. OAK 0246230, OAK 0274147
Regular
May 27, 2008

HIRAM BURNETT vs. USS POSCO INDUSTRIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of temporary disability indemnity. The Board found that jurisdiction was not lost, as there had been no prior award terminating benefits, thus allowing for the award of temporary disability even when it extended beyond five years from the date of injury. This decision was consistent with precedent where ongoing jurisdiction exists if no prior disposition has closed the case.

Temporary disability indemnityDate of injuryJurisdictionReconsiderationAgreed medical examinerPermanent and stationary statusHealing periodActive treatmentPetition to reopenCumulative injury
References
Case No. ADJ8390068
Regular
Oct 20, 2015

SUSANA SALAZAR vs. MOTEL 6, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. The WCJ's decision was consistent with the en banc decision in *Matute*, which held that a party has ten days plus five days for mailing to strike a name from a QME panel assignment. This ruling applies to panel assignments communicated by mail.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRMatute v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.Labor Code section 4062.2(c)QME Panel
References
Case No. ADJ6751877 ADJ6997475
Regular
Nov 17, 2010

BLANCA SUSANA DE LA VEGA vs. SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant was not entitled to spinal surgery based on the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. The applicant also failed to prove a new injury occurred on March 13, 2009, as evidence indicated a flare-up of a prior injury. The Board found the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion constituted substantial evidence and saw no reason to deviate from it.

ADJ6751877ADJ6997475Petition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Examinerspinal surgerylumbar fusionhysterical conversion reactionAOE/COEsubstantial medical evidenceprimary treating physician
References
Case No. WCK 60593
Regular
Mar 28, 2008

SUSANA AGUILAR vs. CUSTOM SENSORS AND TECHNOLOGIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior dismissal order. The defendant argued they were denied due process because they did not receive notice of intention to dismiss, and the dismissal was improper as the main claim was settled, leaving only a contribution issue. The Board agreed that substantial justice warranted a hearing on the merits, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalApplication for Adjudication of ClaimNotice of Intention to DismissDue ProcessCompromise and ReleaseContribution between defendantsReport and RecommendationProof of serviceDismissal of contribution claim
References
Showing 1-10 of 17 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