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. ADJ9528365
Regular
Dec 17, 2014

WANDA MALLOY-LEE vs. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, Malloy-Lee v. Stockton Unified School District, was dismissed because the Petition for Removal became moot. The underlying dispute was resolved when both parties agreed to transfer the venue to the Stockton District Office. An Order Changing Venue reflecting this agreement was issued prior to the Board's decision on the removal petition. Therefore, the Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as it no longer presented a live controversy.

Petition for RemovalMootTransfer of VenueOrder Changing VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's ReportDismissal
References
0
Case No. ADJ9509583
Regular
May 23, 2017

STEVEN THOMAS vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Stockton's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was taken from an interim order, not a final decision. While some issues were finalized, the order to develop the record on permanent partial disability was procedural. The Board also denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the order to develop the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedInterim OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueRemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
9
Case No. ADJ7320534
Regular
Mar 17, 2015

RICHARD VANOVER vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Richard Vanover vs. City of Stockton. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that allowed the defendant to take credit for a prior attorney fee of $186,000. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. The original decision found the credit appropriate based on the language of the Compromise & Release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise & ReleaseAttorney FeeLabor Code Section 5814Stipulation and AwardOrder ApprovingPetition to Enforce AwardPenaltiesMutual Mistake
References
0
Case No. ADJ177993 (STK 0213671) ADJ740125 (SFO 0466154) ADJ975658 (SFO 0466155)
Regular
May 05, 2016

ANDREW PROUTY (Deceased) vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

This case concerns a request for additional attorney's fees for services rendered by applicant's counsel in opposing the defendant City of Stockton's petition for a writ of review. The Third District Court of Appeal had previously remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for this purpose. The Board reviewed the itemized time and requested rate, ultimately awarding $6,880.00 based on 17.2 hours at $400.00 per hour, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount for the appellate work.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Supplemental AwardAttorney FeesAppellate Attorney FeesCourt of AppealReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityLegislative Intent
References
1
Case No. ADJ7700512
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

John E. Skaff vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision denying a police officer's claim for prostate cancer. The applicant sought an adverse inference against the City of Stockton for failing to produce Hazard Awareness Recognition Program (HARP) forms allegedly detailing chemical exposures during methamphetamine lab investigations. The Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case for further development of the record. This is to determine whether the City had a duty to retain and produce the HARP forms, and if the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in seeking them. The Board will then allow the WCJ to decide if an adverse inference is warranted and issue a new decision.

Hazard Awareness Recognition ProgramHARP formsadverse inferenceindustrial causationprostate cancerchemical exposuremethamphetamine labspolice officerQualified Medical ExaminerDr. Juan Cesar Larach
References
1
Case No. ADJ3855576 (STK 0210109)
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

CARL JOHNSON vs. STOCKTON OPEN AIR MALL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision regarding applicant Carl Johnson's claim against Stockton Open Air Mall. The applicant alleged wrongful termination in violation of Labor Code §132a, but the WCJ found the employer terminated him for legitimate, unrelated reasons, including attendance issues and conflicts. The WCJ's credibility findings were given great weight, and the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof that the termination was due to his work injury. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied, as the applicant had already had his opportunity to present evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code §132aPretrial Conference StatementCredibility of witnessesTermination of employmentCause for terminationWork injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ3383028 (STK 0197218) ADJ8225159 ADJ3094525 (STK 0199499)
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

ARMANDINA MACHUCA vs. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by YORK SERVICES GROUP

The WCAB denied Stockton Unified School District's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of temporary total disability. The defendant argued the award in ADJ3383028 was improper due to the five-year limitation under Labor Code section 4656(b) and insufficient medical evidence. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the March 4, 2004 injury contributed to the 2012 temporary disability period, and that section 4656(b) applies only to temporary partial disability. Furthermore, the Board clarified that the five-year reopening limitation does not apply in cases without a prior award of compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArmandina MachucaStockton Unified School DistrictPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and Orderindustrial injuryspineright shoulderpsyche
References
1
Case No. ADJ2312171 (SDO 0267352) ADJ6808818
Regular
Jan 19, 2012

MICHAEL BERMUDEZ vs. SAFELITE GLASS CORP.; SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning the denial of his motion for a change of venue. The applicant, residing in Salida, sought to transfer his case from the San Jose to the Stockton District Office. Good cause was established by the applicant's difficulty traveling to San Jose due to his injuries and his securing representation from a Stockton attorney, as evidenced by a letter from counsel. Consequently, venue was changed to the Stockton District Office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueStockton District OfficeSan Jose District OfficeGood CauseLabor Code Section 5501.5(a)(2)Labor Code Section 5501.6(a)Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeApplicant Representation
References
0
Case No. ADJ7641403
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

MARU ARAGAW vs. SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Applicant Maru Aragaw sought to remove an order changing venue from San Francisco to Stockton for her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition. The defendant's objection to the initial San Francisco venue was timely, as it was filed within 30 days of receiving notice of the case number and venue. Therefore, the WCJ correctly ordered the venue changed to Stockton, where the applicant resides.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6WCJSan Francisco district officeStockton district officeApplication for Adjudication of Claimvenue siteobjection to venueRule 10410
References
0
Case No. ADJ10438517, ADJ10590208
Regular
May 23, 2017

MARIA VIGIL (aka MARIA MORGAN) vs. COUNTY OF MERCED PROBATION DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, which sought to overturn a judge's denial of her venue change request. The applicant argued for a venue change to Stockton, citing her new residence, her adjuster's location, and potential future litigation in Stockton. However, the Board found no good cause for the requested change, concluding that the applicant's attorney's convenience, not the applicant's hardship, was the primary motivation. Granting the petition would undermine the statutory provisions for venue changes when the initial venue is based solely on attorney convenience and the employer objects.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for Change of VenueWCJVenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Labor Code Section 5501.6Good CauseConvenience of CounselCumulative Trauma
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 41 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