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. ADJ10988642; ADJ11111236
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

Cecilia Dolores Garcia vs. Pomona Unified School District, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

Both applicant Cecilia Dolores Garcia and defendants Pomona Unified School District and Sedgwick Claims Management Services petitioned for reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's Findings and Order (Amended) from January 30, 2025. The WCJ had found no work-related psyche injury, an industrial left knee injury, and ordered further development for other claimed body parts. The applicant contested the psyche injury finding, while the defendants challenged the left knee finding and the need for further medical development. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted both petitions for reconsideration and deferred a final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

Cumulative traumaPsyche injuryLeft knee injuryIndustrial natureFurther developmentMed-legal evaluationSpecific injuryNon-industrialDiligencePetition for reconsideration
References
24
Case No. ADJ2906378
Regular
May 24, 2011

NORMA ALONSO vs. PRECISION CAST PARTS CORPORATION AKA AVIBANK MANUFACTURING, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves Norma Alonso's workers' compensation claim against Precision Cast Parts Corporation and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. Alonso filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal, seeking to overturn a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. Ultimately, the Board denied both reconsideration and removal, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report.

ReconsiderationRemovalPetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeniedPrecision Cast Parts CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ2906378LAO 0881297
References
0
Case No. GRO 0033694
Regular
Dec 21, 2007

MICHAEL CEDILLOS vs. WALGREENS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Both applicant Michael Cedillos and defendant Walgreens, through Sedgwick Claims Management Services, petitioned for reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for both parties to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedingsReconsideration UnitDecision After ReconsiderationService by mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ7874883
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

ENRIQUE ESPINOZA vs. MARTIN PROPERTIES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Enrique Espinoza's Petition for Reconsideration against Martin Properties and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition not being timely filed. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalTimely FiledWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeSedgwick Claims Management ServicesMartin PropertiesEnrique EspinozaAnaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. ADJ8158024
Regular
Nov 10, 2015

JOSE ESCOBAR vs. CARDINAL HEALTH; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Cardinal Health and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the underlying decision was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated, nor was it shown that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The Board adopted the WCJ's report for its reasoning in dismissing and denying the petitions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ12320361
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

LINDA ERNEST vs. TRADER JOE'S, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board considered a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant Trader Joe's, administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The petition challenged the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision dated November 26, 2024, which found that the defendant did not meet its burden of proof regarding apportionment for injuries to the applicant's left hand, left wrist, and left knee. The WCJ's decision awarded 51% permanent disability based on the medical reporting of PQME Michael Slutzker, MD, but only found apportionment for the low back injury. The defendant specifically contended that the WCJ erred in not allowing apportionment for the left knee. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting and incorporating the WCJ's report, which concluded that the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report lacked sufficient explanation and detail to support the proposed apportionment for the left knee, thus failing to meet the defendant's burden of proof.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Transmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemReport and RecommendationApportionmentPermanent DisabilityCausationQualified Medical Evaluator
References
11
Case No. ADJ2296442 (VNO 0518441)
Regular
May 29, 2013

ENRIQUE DE LA TORRE vs. NESTLE USA, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by an applicant against Nestle USA, Inc. and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not taken from a final order. However, the WCAB returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, including dismissal of a lien and potential sanctions.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedNot from Final OrderReturned to Trial LevelLien DismissalNotice of IntentSanctionsNestle USASedgwick Claims ManagementWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7665032
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

LILIANA GIL vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE for SAFETY NATIONAL (KY)

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. and Sedgwick Claims Management Service. The defendants sought to dismiss the lien of Jacobs Chiropractic Clinic due to the timing of its lien activation fee payment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the removal, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report. The judge reasoned that Labor Code §4903.06(a)(4) allows lien claimants to submit proof of payment at a lien conference, and here the DOR was not deemed filed until the fee was paid. Furthermore, the judge noted that the defendants' counsel failed to provide their State Bar number as required.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ ReportDeclaration of ReadinessLien Activation FeeDocument DeficiencyLabor Code §4903.06Figueroa v. B.C. DoeringDue ProcessReparable Harm
References
2
Case No. ADJ4634338 (MON 0262377)
Regular
Jun 24, 2009

NINA GOODRICH vs. UNILAB/QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA, CNA CLAIMSPLUS, VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, ZURICH INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a dispute over contribution claims following a cumulative injury to the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded an arbitration finding, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that Sedgwick, which paid over $180,000 in benefits, was not required to file a petition for contribution under section 5500.5 because it was not a signatory to the Compromise and Release (C&R). Furthermore, the Board held that even if Sedgwick had been required to file, the co-defendant CNA would be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations due to stipulations in the C&R reserving contribution rights. The Board concluded Sedgwick's claim for reimbursement was not time-barred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNina GoodrichUnilabQuest DiagnosticsSedgwick Claims Management ServicesAmerican Casualty Co.CNA ClaimsplusValley Health SystemsTristar Risk ManagementZurich Insurance Co.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 22,778 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