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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
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. ADJ9997985, ADJ9997986, ADJ10037755
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

DAVID LIVINGSTON vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.;, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION;, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal filed by the defendant. The WCAB found the petition was untimely because it was filed one day after the 20-day deadline for removal following personal service. This deadline is jurisdictional, and the WCAB cannot consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with no request for supplemental pleading granted.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ DecisionAppeals Board RuleJurisdictional Time LimitSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507
References
Case No. ADJ8937901
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

SANDRA DELAO vs. MARTIN TRANSPORTATION, LTD., CANNON COCHRAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sandra Delao's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's December 10, 2015 decision, exceeding the statutory filing deadline. Additionally, the petition was not verified and was not served on applicant's attorney or defendant's attorney, providing further grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the Board had no jurisdiction to consider the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalVerificationServiceLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903Rule 10507Rule 10508Rule 10845
References
Case No. ADJ6535347, ADJ6534384
Regular
Nov 02, 2015

CHRISTINE KNAPP vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn findings of $53\%$ permanent disability and disputed the exclusion of vocational expert reports and a claim of $100\%$ disability. The Board found the petition contained numerous factual misrepresentations and violations of WCAB rules and professional conduct by the applicant's attorney. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial due to the petition's legal defects and factual inaccuracies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardOccupational Group NumberIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderMigraine HeadachesPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ8345654
Regular
Jun 11, 2014

BUNNY SWANSON vs. ODYSSEY HEALTH CARE, ODYSSEY HEALTH CARE INC, SEDGWICK CMS, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ms. Swanson's petition for reconsideration because it was procedurally deficient, violating multiple board rules, including improper filing and failure to serve the defendant. The Administrative Law Judge's report, which the Board adopted, also found that Ms. Swanson failed to meet her burden of proof on causation. The judge determined that her claimed psychological injuries were not industrially caused and were unsupported by credible medical evidence, noting documented performance and attitude issues. Furthermore, the judge concluded that her personal discomfort with co-workers' lifestyles did not constitute a work-related injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportRule 10842Rule 10843Rule 10845Rule 10850Rule 10844sexual harassmenttoxic work environment
References
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
Case No. ADJ6918185
Regular
Jan 07, 2017

LORRAINE ROBBINS vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AAA AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration due to multiple procedural defects. Specifically, the petition was deemed skeletal, unverified, and lacked proof of service on adverse parties, all of which are required by Labor Code section 5902 and relevant Appeals Board Rules. The applicant was also provided notice of the lack of verification but failed to cure the defect. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and subsequent filings were rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportTimelinessVerification Defect
References
Case No. ADJ6714992
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

JILL RUTH HAMILTON vs. DOHERTY EMPLOYMENT GROUP, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's claim for psychiatric injury barred under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Board clarified that "employment" for the six-month rule means actual performance of services, not just being on the company's books or receiving benefits. The applicant's actual paid work period was 179 days (5 months and 26 days), falling short of the required six months. Therefore, her claim for psychological injury was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code section 3208.3(d)Cumulative trauma injuryPsychiatric injurySix-month employment ruleActual servicesRemuneratedSudden and extraordinary employment conditionDate of injury
References
Case No. ADJ1921631
Regular
Aug 03, 2009

HERNAN MARTINEZ vs. YAMATO RESTAURANT, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sustained industrial injuries to his back and psyche, claiming a sleep disorder. The defendant sought to raise Labor Code § 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims, but the WCJ initially denied this. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the six-month rule can be raised at any time as it pertains to compensation payment, not jurisdiction. The Board amended the WCJ's order to allow the defendant to raise this issue at trial.

RemovalLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six-month rulePsychiatric injuryCompensabilityStipulationIndustrial injuryPetition for RemovalWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,582 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