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. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. ADJ8181938; ADJ8702275
Regular
Apr 10, 2023

KAREN MILLER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued against the statutory 15% increase, the method of evaluating spine impairment, and the inclusion of a sleep disorder. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the application of the 15% increase or the evaluation of the spine impairment using the ROM method as deemed appropriate by the agreed medical examiner. Furthermore, the Board upheld the finding of an industrially caused sleep disorder, noting that formal sleep studies are not always required for diagnosis and that the physician's rating falls within the AMA Guides.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedVentura Youth Correctional FacilityAdjudication NumbersOccupational Group 214Cervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral ShouldersGastrointestinal System
References
1
Case No. ADJ700106 (SAL 0075388) ADJ4293270 (SAL 0067937) ADJ3847224 (SAL 0067938) ADJ1646200 (SAL 0011386)
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

WILLIE PEARSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Chamberlain's Children Center, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, CIGA sought to be relieved of liability for applicant's medical treatment, arguing that the State of California Department of Corrections ("the State") constituted "other insurance." The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the State does not qualify as "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(A). Unlike private self-insured employers, the State is not required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance, and thus does not fall within the statutory definition of an "insurer." The Board further clarified that the State Compensation Insurance Fund's role in claim adjustment services for the State does not make it "other insurance" when the State is not otherwise insured with SCIF.

CIGASupernational Insurance Companylegally uninsuredother insurancecovered claimsInsurance Code Section 1063.1State of California Department of Correctionsreimbursementstipulated awardjoint and several liability
References
7
Case No. GRO 0021432
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

Theodore Maiso vs. State of California, Department of Mental Health, State Compensation Insurance Fund, State Contract Services

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by applicant Theodore Maiso against the State of California, Department of Mental Health. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report and reasoning. The Board also corrected a technicality by ordering the substitution of "State of California, Division of Workers' Compensation, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" in place of "State of California, Division of Workers' Compensation" in the WCJ's decision headings to accurately reflect the judicial authority.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDTheodore MaisoState of California Department of Mental HealthLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdjusting AgencyOrder Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeJudicial AuthorityOriginal Jurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. ADJ9433946
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

ELLEN REED vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

In *Reed v. State of California, CDCR California Correctional Center*, the applicant, Ellen Reed, petitioned for reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. The Board believes reconsideration is necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Pending the decision after reconsideration, all filings must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting PetitionStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemRedding District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
16
Case No. ADJ7463348
Regular
Jan 20, 2012

Olga Garau vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, adjusting agency

Applicant Olga Garau petitioned for removal of her case, alleging that assigned workers' compensation judges (WCJs) could not lawfully act as they were not active members of the California Bar. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report and recommendation. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 123.5 requires WCJs to be licensed attorneys and maintain State Bar membership, which includes inactive members. Therefore, the applicant's allegations regarding the judges' qualifications were unsubstantiated, and the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ RecusalLabor Code Section 123.5State Bar MembershipActive vs. Inactive MemberBusiness and Professions Code Section 6003WCAB Rule 10848Report and RecommendationExpedited Trial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13,818 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