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. ADJ8967361
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

FELIPE GARCIA (DECEASED) GUILLERMINA GARCIA (WIDOW) vs. SALVADOR GAYTAN dba G\&P AG MANAGEMENT CONTRACTORS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE, Adjusted by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

This case involved a petition for reconsideration by the applicant in a workers' compensation matter where the deceased worker, Felipe Garcia, was initially found to be an employee but later deemed an independent contractor by the Appeals Board. The applicant argued the Board erred by disregarding the WCJ's credibility assessment and by not applying Labor Code section 2750.5 to unlicensed contractors. The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence the deceased worker was engaged in activities requiring a contractor's license under Business and Professions Code sections 7000 and 7026. Therefore, Labor Code section 2750.5 was inapplicable, and the prior decision finding the applicant an independent contractor was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent contractorEmployee statusReconsiderationLabor Code section 2750.5Contractors' State License LawBlew v. HornerGarza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Rinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Unlicensed contractor
References
4
Case No. ADJ13119319
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

LUIS CALDERA vs. PORTUGUESE FRATERNAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA/SES HALL, OAK RIVER INSURANCE

The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant was an employee when he sustained a left wrist injury. The defendant contended the employment finding was contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and that the WCJ misapplied Labor Code section 2750.5 and failed to consider Borello factors. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report. The report affirmed the WCJ's findings, noting the applicant's credibility and the defendant's failure to rebut the employment presumption, particularly regarding the applicant's lack of a contractor's license as required by Labor Code section 2750.5.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorLabor Code Section 2750.5Borello FactorsSubstantial EvidencePresumption of EmploymentControl and SupervisionBusiness License
References
13
Case No. ADJ994369
Regular
Jan 19, 2014

JOSE JUAREZ vs. WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering a decision that awarded the applicant medical mileage and a penalty for unreasonable delay in compensation payments but denied attorney's fees. The WCAB believes attorney's fees are warranted under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the payment of awarded compensation. The case is being returned to the trial level for the judge to determine and award these attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Mileage Expense ReimbursementAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814.5Cumulative Industrial InjuryPulmonary System Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ10553459
Regular
Feb 23, 2018

JAMES CRAIG SILLERS vs. CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 47% permanent disability benefits to applicant James Sillers. The central dispute concerned whether Sillers was entitled to the maximum disability indemnity rate under Labor Code section 4458.5. The Board majority held that Sillers, a retired police officer with orthopedic injuries, qualified for the maximum rate, interpreting section 4458.5 to apply to any public safety member injured within the timeframes specified in listed presumption statutes, not solely to injuries covered by those specific presumptions. A dissenting opinion argued that only injuries falling under the explicitly enumerated presumptions in section 4458.5 qualified for the maximum rate, citing precedent that non-listed presumptions, like cancer under section 3212.1, did not grant this benefit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Pleasant HillMunicipal Pooling AuthorityCumulative Trauma InjuryCervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral Cubital TunnelsPolice OfficerStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4458.5
References
4
Case No. ADJ11035614
Regular
Feb 07, 2020

EDELIA CARDONA vs. VALJEN, INC. DBA CAESARS PIZZA, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION

In this case, the applicant sought reconsideration after the WCJ denied attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5814.5. The applicant's attorney incurred fees attempting to collect a previously awarded attorney's fee that the defendant unreasonably delayed paying. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding Section 5814.5 applicable in this scenario, as established by precedent in *Turner*. The matter was returned to the trial level to further develop the record on sanctions under Sections 5813, 5814, and 5814.5.

Labor Code sections 581358145814.5attorney's feesunreasonable delaybad faithstipulated attorney's feePetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationcase of first impression
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
9
Case No. ADJ9569685
Regular
Oct 26, 2015

Oscar Cuellar vs. KLM Development, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning the applicant's employment status. The prior decision found the applicant was an independent contractor and not employed by KLM Development. The Board is returning the case to the trial level for analysis of Labor Code section 2750.5 and Business and Professions Code section 7125.2, particularly regarding the licensing and insurance status of the alleged independent contractor, Jaime Perez.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderindependent contractoremployee statusLabor Code 2750.5Business and Professions Code 7125.2license statusinsurance statusRinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
4
Case No. ADJ6521131
Regular
Aug 11, 2010

MARTIN REYES vs. GERALD & BOBBY HUNT (Homeowners), CAPITOL INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant injured while tree trimming for homeowners. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the original decision. The Board found that because the applicant was an unlicensed contractor performing work requiring a license, he is considered an employee as a matter of law under Labor Code section 2750.5. However, the applicant is still excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). Therefore, despite being an employee, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Labor Code section 2750.5Labor Code section 3352(h)unlicensed contractoremployee presumptionstatutory employerresidential dwellingtree trimmingBusiness and Professions Code section 7026.1Cedillo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.independent contractor
References
7
Case No. ADJ3968322
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

GABRIEL CORTEZ vs. THOMAS WYNN & MIA WYNN, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding applicant Gabriel Cortez was an employee of defendants Thomas and Mia Wynn. The Board rescinded the decision due to an incomplete record, specifically the absence of the WCJ's actual decision. The matter is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision, allowing parties to address a newly raised Labor Code section 3715(b) issue. The defendants' arguments regarding employment status under Labor Code sections 2750.5, 3351(d), and 3352(h) remain to be fully adjudicated.

Labor Code section 2750.5Labor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)unlicensed drywall installeremployment relationshipPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationSupplemental Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3715(d)WCJ decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,760 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