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. ADJ10443669
Regular
Oct 04, 2017

Donna Carter vs. Rose International Group, OneBeacon Insurance Group

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that Donna Carter sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and left wrist on May 18, 2016. Despite inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony regarding a slip and fall incident, her account was corroborated by a witness who found her on the floor. Medical records from the day of the incident also supported the applicant's claim, establishing a clear mechanism of injury. The Board found that the common sense nature of a slip and fall does not require expert medical opinion to establish industrial causation for the incident itself.

ADJ10443669Rose International GroupOneBeacon Insurance GroupDonna CarterWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationslip and fallindustrial injuryright kneeleft wrist
References
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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ6875081
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

LOURDES MORENO vs. MELTON FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.; dba COVERALL; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case concerns Lourdes Moreno's claim for workers' compensation benefits following a back injury sustained while performing janitorial services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding that Moreno was an independent contractor, ruling instead that she was an employee of Melton Franchise Systems, Inc. (dba Coverall). The WCAB determined that Coverall exerted pervasive control over Moreno's work, dictating numerous aspects of her business operations beyond mere quality control, which indicated an employer-employee relationship. This decision shifts the responsibility for her injury from Moreno to Coverall for workers' compensation purposes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusFranchise AgreementRight to ControlJanitorial ServicesBorello TestSecondary IndiciaAdhesion ContractPervasive Control
References
Case No. ADJ10826283
Regular
Mar 12, 2019

PETER HLINKA vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding of fact that an inmate was an employee of the County of Santa Barbara for workers' compensation purposes. The inmate voluntarily applied for and accepted a work assignment in the jail, which was not a condition of his incarceration. He received consideration in the form of better housing, food, and mobility, and the County's own resolution authorizing inmate work was permissive rather than compulsory. The Board also admonished the defendant for improperly citing an unpublished case.

Inmate EmploymentWorkers CompensationCounty JailVoluntary WorkConsiderationControlPenal Code 4017Rowland v. County of SonomaPruitt v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code 3351
References
Case No. GOL 100978
Regular
Feb 14, 2008

JANETTE HOPE vs. TRI-COUNTIES REGIONAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the judge's finding, concluding applicant was an employee of Tri-Counties Regional Center, not an independent contractor. The Board found the Center exercised sufficient control over the applicant's work, providing office space, supplies, and scheduling, which outweighed the contractual designation. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the applicant's entitlement to benefits.

Independent contractor vs. employeeIndustrial injuryMulti-system immunological problemsControl of workRight to controlSecondary factors of employmentDistinct occupationTools and suppliesMethod of paymentContractual designation
References
Case No. ADJ6872068
Regular
Sep 11, 2012

OSCAR ORNELAS CASTANEDA vs. FELIS RUELAS, individually, and dba HAPPY'S MOBILE CAR WASH

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant injured in a vehicle accident while traveling to a job site. The defendant argued the applicant was an independent contractor and the injury occurred during his commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant was an employee based on the employer's control over work details and provision of tools. The Board also ruled the "going and coming" rule did not bar compensation as the travel was part of the applicant's job duties, not his personal commute.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationEmployee vs. Independent ContractorBorello factorsGoing and Coming RuleAOE/COEIndustrial InjuryPressure WasherDairy BarnsCompany Vehicle
References
Case No. ADJ6520136
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

GARY HECK vs. L.A. DEPOSITIONS dba FIRST LEGAL COURIER, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that found the applicant was an independent contractor. The WCAB found the applicant was, in fact, an employee, reversing the administrative law judge's determination. Factors including the defendant's control over the applicant's work, the integral nature of the applicant's tasks to the defendant's business, and the applicant's lack of a true independent business weighed heavily in this decision. The WCAB emphasized that labels and self-serving documents do not override the reality of the employment relationship.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEmployee vs. Independent ContractorBorello factorsControl testLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3353Labor Code Section 3357Independent Contractor ProfileEagle 1 Delivery
References
Case No. ADJ11396782
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

SALVADOR RODRIQUEZ-GOMEZ vs. CONTROL AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION

In *Rodriguez-Gomez v. Control Air Conditioning Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result without it, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions were met, and therefore denied the petition.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal Decision
References
Case No. ADJ3057068
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

Cecilio Torres vs. Holbrook Construction, Inc., Lincoln General Insurance Company, American Claims Management, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. The applicant claimed a back and other injuries, alleging he notified his supervisor of the incident and subsequent pain before termination. The Board found the applicant met his burden to prove he provided sufficient notice of injury to his supervisor prior to termination, fulfilling the notice requirement of Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Defendants failed to rebut the applicant's evidence that he reported the injury and requested medical treatment from his supervisor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Notice of InjuryTerminationPreponderance of EvidenceSupervisor NoticeActual NoticeEmployer KnowledgeWCJ Decision
References
Case No. ADJ8406544
Regular
May 26, 2017

TONY BUTLER vs. QUALITY PERSONNEL, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BAXTER HEALTHCARE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Baxter Healthcare's petition for reconsideration of a finding that applicant Tony Butler was a special employee of Baxter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the finding of special employment based on Baxter's significant control over Butler's work, including training, the ability to replace him, and negotiation of his pay rate. Baxter and its carrier, Old Republic, were ordered to administer the claim, with the Board finding that CIGA was not liable due to the existence of other insurance.

Special employeeBorrowing employerControlManner and meansQuality PersonnelBaxter HealthcareOld Republic Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
Showing 1-10 of 317 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