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. ADJ8621679
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

Jon Arends vs. URS Federal Support Services, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company, administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that denied his motion to disqualify defense counsel. The Board found that the applicant's former employer's attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw, previously represented him in a related civil matter. This prior representation created a conflict of interest under professional conduct rules, as Seyfarth likely obtained confidential information material to the current workers' compensation case. Therefore, Seyfarth Shaw and its attorneys are disqualified from representing the defendant in this matter.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to DisqualifyConflict of InterestRule 3-310(E)Joint Defense AgreementAttorney-Client PrivilegeConfidential InformationSubstantial Relationship Test
References
Case No. ADJ9103856
Regular
Sep 24, 2014

OCTAVIO FILIPPINI vs. PILLSBURY, WINTHROP, SHAW, PITTMAN, LLP, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP and its insurer, Twin City Fire Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition 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 after reconsideration. All future communications are to be filed in writing directly with the Board's Commissioners, not with the district office or through e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPillsbury Winthrop Shaw PittmanTwin City Fire Insurance CompanyThe HartfordADJ9103856Sacramento District OfficeGranting PetitionJuly 3 2014 decisionStatutory time constraints
References
Case No. ADJ7516841
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

KAREN SHAW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Karen Shaw's claim for workers' compensation benefits after she slipped and broke her wrist and ankle while walking to a bookstore in San Francisco. The defendant, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services, Inc., argued the injury was not compensable, citing the going-and-coming rule and the bunkhouse rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Shaw's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under the commercial traveler rule. The Board determined that Shaw's walk, while on an extended business trip and on call, was a reasonable expectancy of her employment, even if considered personal activity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren ShawCast & Crew Entertainment ServicesInc.Zurich North AmericaADJ7516841San Franciscogoing and coming rulebunkhouse ruleMotion Picture Health Plan
References
Case No. ADJ7098464
Regular
Apr 02, 2014

## CASEY PENDLEBURY, vs. L. A. DELI DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by an applicant concerning a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The petitioner has officially withdrawn their petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition. This dismissal is based solely on the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardL. A. Deli DistributorsLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ7098464Santa Ana District OfficeMarguerie SweeneyFrank M. Brass
References
Case No. ADJ8673054
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

BERNADETTE LEVSTIK vs. ACOSTA SALES AND MARKETING, THE HARTFORD

Here's a summary for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Levstik v. Acosta Sales and Marketing. The dismissal occurred because the party who filed the petition voluntarily withdrew it. Consequently, the WCAB is no longer considering the appeal of the September 2, 2016 Findings of Fact, Order, and Award. The matter is now concluded with the dismissal of the reconsideration petition.

Petition for Reconsideration withdrawnDismissal OrderFindings of Fact Order and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeADJ8673054ACOSTA SALES AND MARKETINGTHE HARTFORDBERNADETTE LEVSTIKVan Nuys District Office
References
Case No. SFO 495194
Regular
Jul 17, 2007

SHIRLEY SHAW vs. SETON MEDICAL CENTER, Permissibly Self-Insured and Administered by OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the apportionment of permanent disability for Shirley Shaw's left shoulder and neck injury. The employer sought reconsideration of an award finding $34\%$ permanent disability, arguing the judge erred by not apportioning $30\%$ of the disability to a pre-existing condition as suggested by the Agreed Medical Examiner. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the case for further proceedings on apportionment, noting the defendant did not waive the issue and that the AME's apportionment lacked sufficient detail.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSETTER MEDICAL CENTEROCTAGON RISK SERVICESSHIRLEY SHAWOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTAGREED MEDICAL EXAMINERPRE-EXISTING DEGENERATIVE CONDITION
References
Case No. ADJ4120534 (POM 0297037), ADJ2862914 (POM 0298490), ADJ4622170 (POM 0298730), ADJ1753517 (POM 0058454), ADJ3646011 (POM 0249199)
Regular
Dec 19, 2013

SANDRA GREGORY vs. COVINGTON CROWE, LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sandra Gregory's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation, finding no grounds for reconsideration. To the extent the petition was deemed a request for removal, that request was also denied. The case involves multiple claim numbers and parties, including Covington Crowe, LLP and State Compensation Insurance Fund.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDismissedDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationADJ4120534ADJ2862914ADJ4622170
References
Case No. ADJ9116799
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

JOHN FLOYD vs. CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY (BHHC) for FLOYD, SKEREN & KELLY, LLP et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board only grants it when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration would be inadequate. In this instance, the Board found no persuasive evidence of such prejudice or harm, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for denial. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judgeextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
References
Case No. ADJ8276917
Regular
Jun 03, 2014

MARIO GONZALEZ vs. WEST PICO FOODS, INC., and TOWER SELECT INSURANCE, administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that Mario Gonzalez sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, rejecting the employer's post-termination defense. The Board also imposed a $950 sanction against the applicant's attorneys, Lawrence Y. Kao, Esq. and Pearlman, Borska & Wax, LLP, for misrepresenting facts and the record in their petition. The attorneys' responses failed to demonstrate good cause to avoid sanctions, as they primarily argued the merits of the injury claim rather than addressing the issues raised by the sanctions notice. The employer's insurance administrator, York Insurance Services Group, Inc., was not held responsible for the attorneys' conduct.

AOE/COEpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)petition for reconsiderationNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgefindings and ordersanctionsPearlman Borska & Wax
References
Case No. ADJ10857876; ADJ10857882
Regular
Mar 06, 2023

MINNIE BYRD vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Board rescinded the prior order, finding the defendant failed to prove a change in circumstances justifying the termination of applicant's home healthcare provider, Myra Shaw. The defendant must pay Ms. Shaw for services rendered, and the matter is returned for further proceedings. Applicant's objection to exhibits 12 and 13 was overruled.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMinnie ByrdCity of Los AngelesOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJhome healthcare servicesMyra ShawExhibits 12 and 13change in circumstances
References
Showing 1-10 of 89 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