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. ADJ9921643
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

Katherine Turner vs. CITY OF CULVER CITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that deemed lien claims invalid due to electronic signatures on declarations. The Board found that electronic signatures, specifically the "S signature" format used in electronic filings, are legally sufficient under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Consequently, the prior decision invalidating the liens based on the lack of a "wet" signature was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings. The Board clarified that electronic signatures satisfy the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.8(d) declarations.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)electronic signaturewet signaturepenalty of perjurylien claimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsiderationfindings of fact and ordersadministrative law judgeUniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)
References
Case No. ADJ9837116, ADJ9837115
Regular
Aug 10, 2018

EVERARDO OCAMPO SANCHEZ vs. MAJESTIC INTERIORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior order dismissing a lien claimant's liens by operation of law. The WCAB found that a corporate signature on a Labor Code section 4903.05 declaration, when filed electronically, is permissible and does not necessarily render the declaration defective. The Board clarified that electronic signatures by entities are valid for these declarations, and the case was returned for a new decision on the validity of the declaration and other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimLabor Code Section 4903.05DeclarationDismissal by Operation of LawElectronic SignatureJET FilerEAMSDigital SignatureUETA
References
Case No. LAO 849277
Regular
Feb 15, 2008

CARLOS AVILA vs. SUPERBRA, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was not properly verified, as required by Labor Code section 5902. The Board adopted the Judge's report which noted the stamped signature and the claimant's failure to cure the defect or provide a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. Furthermore, the Board found the claimant's claim of not receiving notice of the lien dismissal insufficient to overcome proof of service.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantUniversal Psychiatric Medical GroupOrder Dismissing LiensLien TrialNotice of IntentionUnverified PetitionStamped SignatureLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body
References
Case No. ADJ9169097 (MF) ADJ9165067
Regular
Aug 09, 2019

Rosa Reyes vs. Nestle USA, ACE American Insurance

This case involved lien claimants whose liens were disallowed because their Labor Code section 4903.8(d) declarations were signed with electronic "S" signatures rather than wet signatures. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, holding that electronic signatures are valid for these declarations. The WCAB found that existing law and prior panel decisions support the use of electronic signatures, aligning with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)wet signatureelectronic signaturelien claimantsJoint Findings of Fact and OrderElectronic Adjudication Management SystemJET File Business RulesEAMS Rulespenalty of perjuryUniform Electronic Transactions Act
References
Case No. ADJ8930150
Regular
Jan 14, 2019

MARIA JUAN vs. PJ MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a lien claimant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order requiring a wet signature on a Labor Code section 4903.8 declaration. The Board found that an electronic signature on the declaration was legally valid and sufficient under California law, despite not meeting EAMS filing requirements for unstructured documents. The Board clarified that a defect in filing procedure does not automatically invalidate the signature itself. Therefore, no correction was necessary as the document was accepted for filing.

WCABPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantLabor Code 4903.8DeclarationWet SignatureElectronic SignatureMedical-Legal ExpensesEAMSJET-filing
References
Case No. ADJ10711762 ADJ10901794
Regular
Dec 24, 2019

DAVID YEREMYAN vs. COMFORT KEEPERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that a lien claimant's Labor Code section 4903.8(d) declaration required a "wet signature" for validity. The Board found that an electronically signed declaration, submitted via JET filing, meets legal requirements and is attributable to the signatory. Therefore, the lien claimant's declaration was deemed validly filed on the date of electronic submission, not when the "wet signature" was later provided. The case was remanded to the trial level for further proceedings on the statute of limitations issue.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLabor Code section 4903.8(d)Wet SignatureElectronic SignatureStatute of LimitationsEDEXISJET FilerEAMS
References
Case No. ADJ3874707 (ANA 0393103)
Regular
Jul 01, 2009

WILLIAM MARCHESE vs. THE HOME DEPOT, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted By SEDGWICH CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a worker's compensation claim where the applicant's former attorney, Krishna Gulaya, is facing potential sanctions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is investigating allegations that Gulaya submitted a falsified Compromise and Release agreement, including improper witnessing and backdating of signatures. The WCAB has scheduled a conference solely to address the imposition of sanctions against Gulaya for this misconduct. Gulaya is ordered to appear at the conference to demonstrate good cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsApplicant's AttorneyCompromise and ReleaseWCJIndustrial InjuryFindings of FactAward and OrderSet AsideWitness Signatures
References
Case No. ADJ17371801; ADJ18218517
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

MARIO PALACIOS vs. PLAN B ADVANTAGE, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Mario Palacios petitioned for removal from a WCJ's order mandating in-person appearances for himself and two witnesses to verify signatures on a Compromise and Release (C&R). He also sought clarification on electronic signatures and challenged a prior C&R disapproval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the August 4, 2025 order and allowing Palacios to appear remotely to verify his signature. The Board declined to issue an advisory opinion on electronic signatures but referenced relevant codes, and deemed the challenge to the prior C&R disapproval moot due to an amended C&R.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseElectronic SignaturesIn-Person HearingRemote AppearanceDue ProcessWCJ OrderRescind OrderGood CauseWitness Testimony
References
Case No. ADJ8189699
Regular
Mar 27, 2013

VERONICA TREJO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves a dispute over a workers' compensation award based on stipulations approved at a mandatory settlement conference where the applicant was not present. The defendant sought to set aside the award, alleging issues with signatures and a "mutual mistake" regarding permanent disability. The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, upholding the judge's authority to set aside the award pending further investigation. The Board highlighted serious ethical concerns regarding potential misconduct by both parties in the filing of the stipulations. The case was remanded for a status conference to address signature validity and potential sanctions.

Petition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside AwardStipulations with Request for AwardMandatory Settlement ConferenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorPetition to Set Aside StipulationMutual MistakeFraudDue ProcessEthical Misconduct
References
Case No. OAK 0279116, OAK 0323541
Regular
May 02, 2008

BARBARA MCMILLER vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the prior order approving a Compromise and Release. This action was taken because the defendant contested the validity of the settlement, alleging the applicant died prior to signing the agreement and that the signature was not authentic. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the legitimacy of the settlement agreement.

McMillerCounty of AlamedaSedgwick Claims Management ServicesOAK 0279116OAK 0323541Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJsettlementapplicant died
References
Showing 1-10 of 63 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