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. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ9625407
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

KEITH FIELD vs. CITY OF PINOLE

This case involves a firefighter who sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome after retirement. The Appeals Board reversed the trial judge, holding that Labor Code section 4458.5 applies, entitling the applicant to permanent disability benefits calculated at the maximum indemnity rate. This applies regardless of the applicant's actual earnings or the fact that carpal tunnel syndrome is not a specifically enumerated presumptive injury. The case is remanded for determination of the precise date of injury to calculate the benefit rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith FieldCity of PinolePermissibly Self-InsuredMunicipal Pooling AuthorityADJ9625407Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryfirefighterbilateral upper extremities
References
Case No. ADJ2353136 (STK 0213635)
Regular
Dec 19, 2016

AHMED SHOAIB vs. CAMBELL SOUP COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the payment of a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant, Ahmed Shoaib, settled a discrimination claim against Campbell Soup Company for $55,000. Campbell Soup unilaterally withheld over $19,000 from the applicant's share of the settlement for alleged payroll taxes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Campbell Soup's petition for reconsideration, finding that the company unreasonably delayed payment by taking a unilateral credit. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and the awarded 25% penalty for the delayed payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and AwardLabor Code Section 132aAmended Petition for PenaltyDelayed PaymentLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Contract EnforcementUnilateral Credit
References
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ4579659
Significant
Sep 09, 2008

Dee Anne Ramirez, Applicant vs. Drive Financial Services, One Beacon Insurance Co.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, holds that penalties under Labor Code section 5814(a) are discretionary, successive penalties are permissible under specific circumstances, and attorney's fees under section 5814.5 apply to private employers for unreasonable delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

WCABLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5penaltyattorney feesen bancreconsiderationdiscretionary penaltysuccessive penaltyunreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ2529270 (MON0205624)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

ZOI FOVOS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT permissibly self insured c/o SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision that found an award was paid timely without penalties. Applicant contended the defendant failed to include interest with the award payment, entitling them to penalties and attorney fees. The Board found the WCJ's decision failed to address the timeliness of interest payment and the applicability of penalties under Labor Code sections 5814 and 5814.5. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings and a new decision regarding potential penalties and attorney fees for the delayed interest payment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardPenaltyAttorney's FeeInterest on AwardLabor Code Section 4650Labor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5
References
Case No. MON 0311613
Regular
Aug 05, 2008

YURIKO OGAWA vs. CEDARS SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMS

This case concerns the defendant's unreasonable delay in paying a March 2007 stipulated workers' compensation award, specifically the attorney fees portion. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that attorney fees under Labor Code Section 5814.5 are permissible for enforcing the payment of penalties on delayed attorney fees. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine a reasonable amount of Section 5814.5 attorney fees, as the initial request was deemed potentially excessive.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYuriko OgawaCedars Sinai Health SystemsFindings and AwardStipulated AwardLabor Code section 5814(b)10% penaltysection 5814section 5814.5attorney fees
References
Case No. ADJ4579659
En Banc
Sep 09, 2008

DEE ANNE RAMIREZ vs. DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO.

The Appeals Board holds that penalties under Labor Code section 5814(a) are discretionary, clarifies when successive penalties are appropriate, and confirms that section 5814.5 attorney's fees apply to unreasonable delays occurring after its 2003 effective date, regardless of the injury date, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boarden bancLabor Code section 5814penaltiesattorney feesLabor Code section 5814.5unreasonable delaycompromise and releasesuccessive penaltygenuine doubt
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ7433185, ADJ7605177, ADJ7632504
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

Christine Held vs. Stanislaus County Housing Authority, Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by Innovative Claims Solutions

The Board amended the original order, finding the employer waived its right to object to the applicant's spinal surgery due to a failure to timely object to the proposed treatment. However, the Board denied the applicant's request for a penalty under Labor Code section 5814 and attorney's fees under section 5814.5, as the issue of a penalty was not appropriate for an expedited hearing and there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay. The matter was returned to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStanislaus County Housing AuthorityInnovative Claims SolutionsChristine HeldADJ7433185ADJ7605177ADJ7632504Fresno District OfficeOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Order
References
Showing 1-10 of 7,951 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