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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ2136789 (MON 0357209)
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

ROBERT FLORES vs. GARNET PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND SECURITY, INC., JOSEPH'S CAFE, INC., PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and found the applicant was solely employed by Garnet Protective Services, not Joseph's Cafe. The Board further determined the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury on July 12, 2007. The majority concluded the applicant's commute to an extra shift did not constitute a special mission and fell under the "going and coming" rule. A dissenting commissioner argued the extra shift constituted a special mission, making the injury compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGarnet Protective ServicesJoseph's CafePennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance CompanyUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's DecisionEmployee StatusDual EmploymentSpecial Employer
References
Case No. VNO 0470470
Regular
May 12, 2008

GERARDO RAMIREZ vs. WILLIAM ALONSO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning applicant Gerardo Ramirez's employment status at the time of his injury. The Board rescinded the previous findings, finding the evidence insufficient to support dual employment and needing clarification on whether applicant was a casual employee, which might affect his eligibility for benefits. The case was returned to the trial level for additional evidence gathering, including a review of the defendant's insurance policy for the property where the injury occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Fundindustrial injuryright major extremitydefendant's contentiondual employmentthreshold issueemployment relationshippresumption of employmentjoint venture
References
Case No. ADJ10009703 ADJ10043837
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

ZULAY DAVILA vs. EMPLOYERS RESOURCE GROUP, VENSURE HR, INC., LCF LIBERTY JR, LLC/SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, PROPORTION FOODS, LLC/REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to a due process violation. The WCJ had determined employment by ERG without providing ERG notice and an opportunity to be heard. The WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to determine employment status. Issues of insurance coverage will be subject to mandatory arbitration once employment is established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVENSURE HRSecurity National Insurance CompanyProportion FoodsLLCREDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIESAMTRUST NORTH AMERICAEMPLOYMENT RESOURCES GROUPINC.
References
Case No. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
Case No. ADJ11968759
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

JESUS ORTEGA GONZALEZ vs. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., BALJINDER S. GILL, PEOPLEASE LLC, NATIONAL INTERSTATE RICHFIELD.

This case involves an applicant injured while employed by both Major Transportation Services and Peoplease, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). Peoplease sought reconsideration of a finding that they jointly employed the applicant on the date of injury, arguing payroll was not processed through them. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that a co-employment relationship existed. The WCJ found that despite Peoplease's argument about payroll timing, evidence showed Peoplease benefitted from the applicant's work and their actions were inconsistent with strict contract adherence, akin to precedent in Gulam v. Patel. Ultimately, Peoplease's arguments regarding payroll timing were deemed coverage issues subject to arbitration and not grounds to deny the finding of co-employment.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOdual employmentgeneral employerspecial employerco-employmentclient policyLabor Code section 3602(d)presumption of employmentsubstantial evidence
References
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
Case No. VNO 0461030
Regular
Nov 30, 2007

CHRISTOPHER MENDEZ vs. GRAY LIFT, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and returned the case for further proceedings to determine the general employer's (Lyon Lift, Inc.) potential liability for the applicant's injury. This is to address whether Lyon had duties under workplace safety laws (Labor Code sections 6400-6404) and if its negligence, if any, contributed to the injury caused by a defective saw provided by the special employer. The Board will then determine if Lyon is entitled to a third-party credit for the applicant's settlement based on its own negligence and established credit principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardThird-party creditGeneral employerSpecial employerImputation of negligenceLabor Code sections 6400-6404Workplace safetyPrimary employerSecondary employerDual employment
References
Case No. SAC 0300070
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

HAROLD RANDALL vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, C.I.G.A., INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, MCKESSON CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award because the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding the applicant was not a special employee of McKesson Corporation. The Board found that McKesson exercised sufficient control and supervision over the applicant, who was provided by a temporary staffing agency, to establish a special employment relationship. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decision on all outstanding issues.

Special employmentDual employmentTemporary employment agencyControl and directionBorrowing employerGeneral employerIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityQualified medical evaluatorReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ4413699 (SDO 0272634)
Regular
Jul 26, 2018

ROMINA FATURECHI vs. JOSEPH CAPPS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, OCEAN'S ELEVEN CASINO, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a prior decision, finding that the applicant was jointly employed by Joseph Capps and Ocean's Eleven Casino. This determination was based on evidence that the Casino exercised control over the applicant's work, including directing when games started and stopped, providing meals, and having the ability to influence her hiring and termination. The Court emphasized that the legality of the Casino employing the applicant was not the decisive factor. Therefore, both Capps and the Casino are considered dual employers for the purposes of workers' compensation.

Dual employmentSpecial employment relationshipJoint employmentControl of employee activitiesCasino bankerPropositional playerUninsured employerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundBorello test
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,710 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