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. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182)
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding Milton Guzman sustained an industrial psychological injury. The defendant, Zurich North America, argued the applicant did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board will allow supplemental briefing on whether the applicant met the six-month employment duration requirement for psychiatric claims, as this issue was not fully decided by the WCJ. The decision will address this specific issue before issuing a final ruling.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix month employment requirementindustrial injuryFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationsupplemental briefingWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
Case No. ADJ2589823 (SAC 0308902) ADJ2540345 (SAC 0345444) ADJ3219675 (SAC 0308903)
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

KIM RIVERS, vs. AON CORPORATION,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Applicant Kim Rivers' Petition for Removal. Applicant sought to overturn an order requiring the defendant, Aon Corporation, to retain a forensic accountant. Applicant argued this was irrelevant given a prior stipulation on benefits paid, but failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order. The Board also denied a request for supplemental briefing.

Petition for RemovalForensic AccountantStipulation and OrderIrreparable HarmWCJ OrderAppeals Board Rule 10848Significant PrejudiceBenefits PaidSupplemental BriefAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ5761209
Regular
Sep 20, 2010

RICHARD PADGETT vs. AON CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE/XCHANGING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant Aon Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's findings. This decision was made to allow for a more thorough review of the case's factual and legal issues. Additionally, the WCAB granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental brief within 15 days. All future correspondence regarding this case should be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

ADJ5761209Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactSupplemental BriefAppeals Board Rule 10848Decision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners
References
Case No. ADJ9355637
Regular
Apr 21, 2017

JESUS TORRES vs. GREENBRAE MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's request to file supplemental briefing regarding his psychiatric injury. The applicant seeks reconsideration of an award that excluded permanent disability from his psychiatric injury, arguing it was a direct result of his physical injury, not a consequence, and that his case qualifies as a "catastrophic injury" or involved a violent act. The Board is allowing the defendant ten days to respond to this new argument, which was not previously addressed at trial. This procedural step aims to ensure due process and full consideration of the applicant's claims.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilitycatastrophic injuryLabor Code section 4660.1psychiatric injuryMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman)supplemental briefingviolent act
References
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
Case No. ADJ6808581
Regular
May 22, 2014

SHEIK ZAHID ALI vs. TRIMAC TRANSPORATION SERVICES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY/CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both Petitions for Reconsideration in the case of Sheik Zahid Ali vs. Trimac Transportation Services and its insurers. The Board adopted the arbitrator's report, finding substantial evidence supported the decision, independent of the employer's regulatory compliance. Lexington Insurance Company's supplemental brief did not alter this outcome. Consequently, the prior decision stands and the petitions are officially denied.

Sheik Zahid AliTrimac Transportation ServicesZurich American Insurance CompanyLexington Insurance CompanyChartisPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's decisionsupplemental letter briefWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boarddenial
References
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
Case No. ADJ1372133 (VNO 0488219)
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

CHARLES ROMANO vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves applicant Charles Romano's reconsideration of a Supplemental Findings and Award regarding medical treatment penalties against Ralphs Grocery Company. The applicant sought penalties for delays in providing a wheelchair and reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses, including a van. However, the WCJ rescinded the Supplemental Award and scheduled further proceedings, rendering the petitions for reconsideration moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and AwardMedical Treatment PenaltiesL.C. §§ 58145814.5wheelchairout-of-pocket medical expenseswheelchair accessible vanOrder Rescinding Supplemental Findings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 943 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