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. ADJ6818376 ADJ6818374 ADJ7135107
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

DAVID CARRASCO vs. NAMCO CYBERTAINMENT, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns David Carrasco's workers' compensation claim for industrial injuries sustained while employed by Namco Cybertainment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Carrasco's petition for reconsideration, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's findings. The Board found that Carrasco failed to prove his claimed injuries by a preponderance of evidence, citing a lack of credible testimony and substantial medical evidence. Additionally, the employer's failure to post notices did not create a presumption of injury, and Carrasco did not meet the requirements of Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) for claims filed after layoff.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryRoute ManagerPreponderance of EvidenceLabor Code Section 5401Labor Code Section 3550Labor Code Section 3551Reconsideration DeniedCumulative TraumaSection 3600(a)(10)
References
9
Case No. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403)
Regular
Jan 16, 2013

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Brian Carrasco's petition for reconsideration as successive and untimely. Carrasco had previously filed a similar petition which was dismissed by the WCAB on October 4, 2012, and he failed to seek a writ of review from the Court of Appeal. The current petition, in addition to being a relitigation of dismissed issues, also violated court rules regarding formatting and length. The WCAB warned Carrasco that further attempts to relitigate these issues could result in him being declared a vexatious litigant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSuccessive PetitionVexatious LitigantCourt of AppealWrit of ReviewLabor Code Section 5950Final OrderPetition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5804
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrasco v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Plaintiff Nitza Carrasco filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) and other individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on national origin and race under Title VII, along with retaliation claims and pendent state claims. The plaintiff asserted she was denied a promotion in 1991 and subsequently faced harassment. Defendant OTB moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds of untimeliness. The Court granted the motion, dismissing Carrasco's discrimination claim as time-barred due to her EEOC charge being filed beyond the 300-day statutory limit. The Court rejected arguments for a continuing violation or equitable tolling. Additionally, the retaliation claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was not properly raised with the EEOC or reasonably related to the time-barred discrimination claim. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEEOC Filing DeadlineContinuing Violation DoctrineEquitable Tolling
References
35
Case No. ADJ6717811
Regular
May 28, 2014

SOCORRO CARRASCO vs. APPLE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a defendant's Petition for Removal because the issue they raised was moot. The defendant had argued the workers' compensation judge erred by setting a conference, but the record showed the conference occurred and was taken off calendar by agreement. The Board advised the defendant they could file a petition for reconsideration if an adverse final decision is ultimately issued.

Petition for Removalmoottaken off calendaragreement of partiespetition for reconsiderationLabor Code sections 5900Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management Systemsworkers' compensation judgeadverse decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ2948353
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Brian Carrasco. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely. The Board found that the applicant failed to file within the statutorily allowed 20-day period, extended by 5 days for mailing. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimely FilingAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationFindings and OrderRescind Compromise & ReleaseCompromise & ReleaseLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013
References
1
Case No. MON 0315552
Regular
Apr 14, 2009

SOCORRO RODRIGUEZ vs. MOTORCAR PARTS OF AMERICA, INC., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case concerns an employer's petition for reconsideration of an award for applicant Socorro Rodriguez's bilateral upper extremity and left shoulder injury. The employer contested findings on the applicant's permanent and stationary date, temporary disability period, vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance, and credit for overpaid benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning, despite clarifying minor factual discrepancies in the judge's report.

Permanent disabilityVocational rehabilitation maintenance allowanceTemporary disabilityOverpaymentFindings of Fact & AwardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryBilateral upper extremitiesAdministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ1003604 (VNO 0473994)
Regular
May 10, 2016

MARIO CARRASCO vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Lien claimant Western Medical Center (Western) sought reconsideration of an Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination that found no reimbursement warranted for medical services. Western argued the IBR determination was plainly erroneous because the defendant failed to provide a contract justifying payment below the official medical fee schedule. However, the Board dismissed Western's petition, finding it premature and improperly filed. Western failed to exhaust the required statutory appeal process to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board trial level before filing for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewAdministrative DirectorMaximus Federal ServicesOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleStipulations and AwardCumulative Trauma InjuryLumbar Spinal SurgerySecond Bill ReviewExplanation of Benefits
References
5
Case No. ADJ10301756
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

SOCORRO GONZALES vs. ABM INDUSTRIES, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that is only granted if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalDeniedSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWCJ Report AdoptedExtraordinary RemedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10843(a)
References
2
Case No. ADJ9373269, ADJ9373270
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

SOCORRO SALAZAR vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove her injury was presumptively compensable under Labor Code section 5402. The Board clarified that the 90-day presumption period begins when an employee files a claim form, not when the employer receives notice of injury. The Board affirmed that a claim form, not an Application for Adjudication of Claim, is the legally mandated method for initiating a workers' compensation claim. Therefore, the applicant did not meet her burden of proof for presumptive compensability.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityclaim formdenial of liabilityApplication for Adjudication of Claimrebuttable presumptionfraudulent attemptsstatutory references
References
1
Case No. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403) ADJ803362 (SAL 0116404) ADJ2320380 (SAL 0116407)
Regular
May 04, 2009

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The applicant filed a petition alleging bias by the WCJ based on 21 instances of alleged misconduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal, finding it untimely and unverified, as the applicant did not claim to be aggrieved by the last order and the petition was filed beyond the 20-day limit. Furthermore, the Board denied the disqualification petition because it was not supported by a verified affidavit and the judge in question was not currently assigned to the cases for trial. These procedural deficiencies led to the dismissal of the removal petition and denial of the disqualification petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Steven D. TuanBias AllegationsUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452Labor Code Section 5310
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15 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