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. SAL 0113062
Regular
Jan 02, 2008

, Maria LOURDES TAPIA, vs. REGENT ASSISTED LIVING, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision upholding a 24-visit limit for chiropractic treatment per industrial injury. The applicant argued that the statutory cap conflicted with the liberal construction mandate of Labor Code section 3202, but the Board found no ambiguity in the clear language of Labor Code section 4604.5(d)(1). The Board further clarified that the provision allowing employers to authorize additional visits in writing (LC 4604.5(d)(2)) did not remove the cap, nor did it render chiropractors meaningless within the workers' compensation system.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4604.5(d)(1)chiropractic visitsoccupational therapyphysical therapyLiberal constructionLabor Code Section 3202employer authorizationFindings & Order
References
9
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. ADJ864227 (LBO 350573) ADJ1635667 (LBO 350607)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

LUIS ECHEVARRIA vs. FALCON WEST, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's award of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5. The Board reasoned that section 5814.5 requires an award of attorney's fees to be "in addition to" increased compensation under section 5814, which was not sought or awarded here. Furthermore, the Board found that any delay in payment was not unreasonable due to a good-faith dispute over the net settlement amount.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLUIS ECHEVARRIAFALCON WESTINC.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ864227ADJ1635667OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFindings and Orders
References
1
Case No. ADJ1884066
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

RICHARD REED vs. BAYSIDE INSULATION AND CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release where the settlement expressly excluded future Labor Code section 139.5 benefits. The defendant argued this exclusion was an error, as they intended to settle vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found the exclusion unnecessary and legally inconsequential as Labor Code section 139.5 did not apply to this applicant's injury date, and job displacement benefits are covered under a different section.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationsupplemental job displacement benefitsLabor Code section 4658.5future benefitsindustrial injuryupper extremitiesinsulator
References
0
Case No. ADJ4704248 (SJO 0269173)
Regular
Feb 09, 2012

MATTHEW WILL (Deceased), DIANA WILL (Widow) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether the deceased firefighter Matthew Will's minor children are entitled to continuation benefits beyond the standard death benefit. The defendant argued that continuation benefits under Labor Code section 4703.5 are only available when there is no surviving totally dependent parent, and since the widow qualifies, the children are not eligible. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original award, holding that the amendment to section 4703.5 intended to augment benefits rather than restrict them. They found the reference to section 3501 was to clarify which children qualify, not to preclude benefits when a parent survives.

WCABMatthew WillDiana WillDepartment of Forestry and Fire ProtectionLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderDeath BenefitsLabor Code section 4702
References
2
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
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