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. ADJ7796275
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

MORTEN ANDERSEN vs. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, Atlanta Falcons, New York Giants, Kansas City Chiefs, Minnesota Vikings

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed California's subject matter jurisdiction over Morten Andersen's cumulative injury claim as a professional athlete, due to sufficient work performed in the state. However, the WCAB rescinded the prior finding that liability related back to the New Orleans Saints, Andersen's first employer. This was because Labor Code section 5500.5 mandates liability be allocated to employers during the year preceding the last date of injurious exposure, and the Saints did not employ Andersen during that period. The case was returned to the trial level to join subsequent employers and properly allocate liability under section 5500.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubject Matter JurisdictionIndustrial InjuryProfessional AthleteCumulative InjuryRelation Back DoctrineLabor Code Section 5500.5EmployersLiability AllocationInjurious Exposure
References
21
Case No. ADJ6671169
Regular
Oct 16, 2013

Christian Fauria vs. Carolina Panthers, Great Divide Insurance Co., Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC, Washington Redskins, ESIS Insurance, New England Patriots, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co., Golf Insurance Co., Seattle Seahawks

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding California jurisdiction over Christian Fauria's claim due to lack of "regular employment" in California, as defined by Labor Code Section 3600.5(a). The case was remanded to the trial level to determine if jurisdiction exists based on injuries sustained within California or if the contract of hire was made in California, as per Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB also instructed the judge to address all issues, including apportionment and liability periods under Labor Code Section 5500.5. The decision highlights the need for substantial evidence to establish jurisdiction and injury contribution within the state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristian FauriaProfessional AthleteIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5500.5Jurisdiction
References
29
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. ADJ10809542; ADJ17227129
Regular
Apr 01, 2025

Rick Broussard vs. John Kirby, The Hartford, Oak River Insurance Company

Applicant Rick Broussard, a carpet cleaner, sustained industrial injuries to multiple body parts. Defendant Oak River Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding the Labor Code section 5500.5 liability period and the scope of industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the decision to include an express finding that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury was August 2, 2017, and otherwise affirmed the WCJ's decision. The Board also clarified aspects of Labor Code section 5909 concerning the timeline for acting on reconsideration petitions and upheld the WCJ's findings on the date and extent of injury based on substantial medical evidence.

Labor Code section 5500.5Labor Code section 5412Petition for Reconsiderationcumulative injurydate of injurycompensable disabilitysubstantial evidenceagreed medical evaluatoroccupational diseasecarpal tunnel syndrome
References
17
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. GRO 017747 GRO 017748 GRO 019264
Regular
Jul 17, 2007

CRAIG ANTISTA vs. JORDANOS; CIGA By Its Servicing Facility INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES For CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for removal, rescinding a previous order compelling arbitration. The Board found that CIGA's reimbursement claim against TIG for successive injuries was not a mandatory arbitration matter under Labor Code Section 5500.5, but rather a matter governed by Insurance Code Section 1063.2. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on CIGA's reimbursement petition.

CIGARemovalArbitrationContributionReimbursementInsurance Code Section 1063.2(b)Labor Code Section 5500.5WCJSuccessive InjuriesCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ9805274
Regular
Aug 23, 2019

CELIA VALLADARES vs. PIEGE COMPANY, INC dba FELINA LINGERIE, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, ZURICH INSURANCE c/o PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Zurich Insurance's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior order. The Board found the WCJ erred by failing to address all submitted issues, including insurance coverage periods and the statute of limitations. Crucially, the WCJ did not determine the applicant's Labor Code Section 5412 date of injury, which is necessary for allocating liability under Section 5500.5. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Labor Code Section 5412Continuous traumaInjurious exposureAgreed Medical EvaluatorStatute of limitationsInsurance coverageCumulative injuryDate of injuryWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
5
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