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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ8365866
Regular
May 02, 2014

CESAR MARTIN vs. STUDIO CHAMELEON LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant's injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's stop at a friend's house to retrieve a phone charger benefited the employer by enabling continued communication. Additionally, the auto accident occurred after the applicant left his friend's house and was en route back to the employer's premises on a normal route, thus concluding any deviation. The Board also clarified the legal distinction between "scope of employment" (a tort concept) and "course of employment" (a workers' compensation term of art).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationdeniedcourse of employmentscope of employmentmotor vehicle accidentmaterial deviationemployer's instructionsapplicant's benefitpersonal comfort
References
Case No. VNO 0470470
Regular
May 12, 2008

GERARDO RAMIREZ vs. WILLIAM ALONSO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning applicant Gerardo Ramirez's employment status at the time of his injury. The Board rescinded the previous findings, finding the evidence insufficient to support dual employment and needing clarification on whether applicant was a casual employee, which might affect his eligibility for benefits. The case was returned to the trial level for additional evidence gathering, including a review of the defendant's insurance policy for the property where the injury occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Fundindustrial injuryright major extremitydefendant's contentiondual employmentthreshold issueemployment relationshippresumption of employmentjoint venture
References
Case No. ADJ10009703 ADJ10043837
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

ZULAY DAVILA vs. EMPLOYERS RESOURCE GROUP, VENSURE HR, INC., LCF LIBERTY JR, LLC/SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, PROPORTION FOODS, LLC/REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to a due process violation. The WCJ had determined employment by ERG without providing ERG notice and an opportunity to be heard. The WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to determine employment status. Issues of insurance coverage will be subject to mandatory arbitration once employment is established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVENSURE HRSecurity National Insurance CompanyProportion FoodsLLCREDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIESAMTRUST NORTH AMERICAEMPLOYMENT RESOURCES GROUPINC.
References
Case No. ADJ11968759
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

JESUS ORTEGA GONZALEZ vs. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., BALJINDER S. GILL, PEOPLEASE LLC, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD.

This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOdual employmentgeneral employerspecial employerco-employmentclient policyLabor Code section 3602(d)presumption of employmentsubstantial evidence
References
Case No. ADJ7264969
Regular
Feb 22, 2011

Richard Warner vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant Richard Warner, a firefighter on Catalina Island, sustained injuries while trimming wisteria at his home, which he was required to maintain as a condition of employment and from which he sometimes worked. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the injury was not arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The applicant's home was not considered employer premises under the bunkhouse rule as he owned and maintained it personally, receiving a stipend instead of provided housing. Although working from home was sometimes necessary, trimming wisteria was deemed a purely personal act unrelated to employment duties.

AOE/COEbunkhouse ruleemployer premisessecondary jobsitecourse of employmentperforming serviceproximate causepersonal taskincidental to employmentstipend
References
Case No. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
Case No. ADJ4413699 (SDO 0272634)
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

ROMINA FATURECHI vs. JOSEPH CAPPS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, OCEAN'S ELEVEN CASINO, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a prior decision, finding that the applicant was jointly employed by Joseph Capps and Ocean's Eleven Casino. This determination was based on evidence that the Casino exercised control over the applicant's work, including directing when games started and stopped, providing meals, and having the ability to influence her hiring and termination. The Court emphasized that the legality of the Casino employing the applicant was not the decisive factor. Therefore, both Capps and the Casino are considered dual employers for the purposes of workers' compensation.

Dual employmentSpecial employment relationshipJoint employmentControl of employee activitiesCasino bankerPropositional playerUninsured employerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundBorello test
References
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314) ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316) ADJ460036 (GOL 0101615)
Regular
Dec 12, 2011

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injuries while employed as a zookeeper for Neverland Valley Ranch and other entities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the trial judge erred by excluding evidence related to employment agreements under the parol evidence rule, which is relevant to determining employer status. Further development of the record is required to properly address the applicant's employment relationships with the defendant entities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchMichael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
Case No. ADJ271398 (SFO 0505138)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

Fernando Martinez vs. D.H. SMITH COMPANY, INC., ICW GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the original denial of benefits. The Board found that the applicant's injuries sustained in a vehicle collision arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment, despite his unlicensed driving contrary to employer instructions. The Court held that performing an authorized activity in an unauthorized manner does not remove the injury from the course of employment when the employer provides transportation to a job site. The Board denied the defendant's petition, affirming that the "going and coming rule" did not bar compensation in this instance.

going and coming rulescope of employmentcourse of employmentarising out of employmentemployer provided transportationunauthorized mannermaterial deviationpublic highwayincreased riskLabor Code section 3600
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,690 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

ยฉ 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational