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. ADJ9122601 ADJ9122724
Regular
Mar 08, 2017

WENDY SHALVOY vs. WARNER BROTHERS HOME ENTERTAINMNET, INC.

The applicant claimed her employer violated Labor Code section 132a by withholding temporary disability benefits, which she believed led to differential treatment in a layoff. The WCJ initially issued a "take nothing" order on her entire application. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, finding the WCJ inadvertently applied the "take nothing" order to the wrong part of the applicant's claim. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant failed to prove a violation of section 132a, amending the order to specify she takes nothing regarding her petition for enhanced benefits under that section.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeTemporary Total DisabilitySeverance PackageDifferential TreatmentClerical ErrorPetition for Enhanced Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ7159838 ADJ7550047
Regular
Jul 29, 2014

ALMA PELAYO vs. ASSOCIATED LIEN SERVICES

Applicant Alma Pelayo sought reconsideration of a prior decision that found no violation of Labor Code section 132(a) and ordered her to take nothing further. Pelayo argued the judge erred in this finding and in failing to rule on the admissibility of her Exhibit 15. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit Pelayo's Exhibit 15 and defendant's Exhibits A1, A2, and A3. The Board otherwise affirmed the original decision, meaning Pelayo still takes nothing further.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132(a)Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJApplicant's Exhibit 15Defendant's Exhibits A1A2A3admissible evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ11113127
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a previous decision. The Board's amended order dictates that the applicant will receive nothing from his claim. This decision affirms the original findings of fact, which determined the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his right leg and foot as cumulative trauma. The Board found that while the judge's dismissal was in error, the correct disposition is for the applicant to take nothing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderApplicant take nothingIndustrial injuryCumulative traumaRight legRight footBiasPrejudice
References
3
Case No. ADJ3236135 (ANA 0384292) ADJ2545424 (ANA 00384288)
Regular
Nov 23, 2015

VERONICA MARTINEZ vs. PIZZA HUT CORPORATION/YUM BRANDS, INC., AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision regarding medical-legal fees. The original decision allowed $20,140.50 to the lien claimant, but found the defendant had overpaid and the claimant was to receive nothing further. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a calculation error in the amount owed, amending it to $20,975.00. Despite the recalculation, the defendant had already paid in excess of the corrected amount, so the lien claimant is still to take nothing further on their lien.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationMedical-legal feesCompromise and releaseIndustrial injuryDeath benefitTrial testimonyDiscovery closureDevelop the recordBill reviewer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kornrich

Philip J. Shore, beneficiary of an inter vivos trust, through his guardian ad litem, sought the removal of trustee Georgina Vassiliou, Esq., for her failure to account as directed by a prior court order. Vassiliou, who drafted the trust instrument naming herself as grantor and trustee, argued that the trust terms exempted her from accounting during the beneficiary's lifetime. The court found that such a provision, attempting to render a fiduciary unaccountable, is void as against public policy, as expressed in EPTL 11-1.7, and applies equally to inter vivos trusts where beneficiaries cannot protect their interests. The court also denied Vassiliou's motion to dismiss the guardian's petition and her requests for reargument or renewal, finding them procedurally defective and lacking merit. Ultimately, the court granted the application for Vassiliou's removal as trustee and for permission to take and state her account, while denying all of Vassiliou's motions.

Inter Vivos TrustTrustee RemovalFiduciary DutyAccountingPublic PolicyEPTL 11-1.7Guardian ad LitemBeneficiary RightsProfessional EthicsSurrogate's Court
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. ADJ1359948
Regular
Nov 12, 2009

MARTHA GUTIERREZ vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL MOLDING, KELLY SERVICE, ESIS for ACE USA, CIGA as administered by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES for HIH INSURANCE in liquidation

The WCJ found that the applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury and ordered applicant to take nothing. The Appeals Board denied the applicant’s petition for reconsideration.

Cumulative trauma injuryCarpal tunnel syndromeRepetitive liftingAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 5412Labor Code Section 5500.5Date of injuryCompensable disabilityApportionmentPermanent disability
References
4
Case No. ADJ9812433
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

HECTOR ORTIZ vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, dba TAKE CARE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Walgreens' petition for removal, which challenged an order to take the case off calendar for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) evaluation. The Board found that proceeding with the QME evaluation, which had been delayed due to clerical errors and physician availability, would not cause Walgreens irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and that developing the record through a QME is essential for the orderly resolution of the applicant's alleged industrial injuries.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorOff CalendarSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMedical UnitPanel RequestStrikeReplacement PanelDevelopment of the Record
References
2
Case No. ADJ 3035318
Regular
Aug 26, 2008

GEORGE KAI vs. BENLIAN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ’s decision, and found that the lien claimant take nothing on its lien due to failure to prove applicant's employment at the time of injury and lack of evidence connecting medical treatment to the alleged injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimBurden of ProofEmploymentIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationRescinded DecisionQualified Medical ExaminerMedical TreatmentStatute of Limitations
References
1
Case No. ADJ4519826 (AHM 0143791)
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

DEMAR MARTAY JENKINS vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, DALLAS COWBOYS, ARIZONA RATTLERS, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding California jurisdiction over the applicant's claim against the Arizona Rattlers. The Board found that the contract of hire was not made in California, as the applicant signed the agreement in Arizona and retained the ability to reject it. Therefore, California lacks jurisdiction over the claim against the Arizona Rattlers, and the applicant will take nothing from this defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContract of HireJurisdictionArizona RattlersSCF ArizonaAvizent AnaheimWCJLabor Code Section 5305Labor Code Section 3600.5(a)Laeng v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 519 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