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. ADJ9442434
Regular
Oct 05, 2018

JUAN HERNANDEZ vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, dba RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Hernandez v. Taylor Fresh Foods*, involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The Board found that the petition was filed over 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline. Proof of mailing was insufficient; the petition needed to be *received* by the Board within the statutory period. Consequently, the Board lacked the authority to review the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)Proof of Mailing InsufficientMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
Case No. ADJ6487778
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

SERGIO ZAMORA vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, ZÜRICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Findings and Award that determined the applicant sustained a 100% permanent disability due to an industrial injury. The defendant argued the WCJ erred in deeming the applicant unemployable and sought apportionment of psychiatric disability. However, the parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement via Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter to the trial level for settlement finalization.

Sergio ZamoraTaylor Fresh FoodsZurich North AmericaADJ6487778Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDryer OperatorIndustrial InjuryRight HandThird Finger
References
Case No. ADJ13604184
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

While this matter was pending reconsideration, the parties reached a proposed settlement. To allow the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to review the settlement, the Appeals Board has rescinded the original decision. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. This is not a final decision on the merits; if the settlement is not approved, the WCJ may reinstate the original decision, from which further reconsideration can be sought.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSettlementRescindedReturned to Trial LevelWCJAdministrative Law JudgeProposed SettlementFurther ProceedingsDecision After Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ6680848
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

MARIA VASQUEZ vs. COMPLETELY FRESH FOODS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of a prior finding that Maria Vasquez sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer challenged the finding based on various legal and factual grounds, including the timing of notice of injury relative to termination and the credibility of witnesses. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony regarding reporting the injury credible and sufficient to overcome the employer's defense under Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10). The Board also upheld the WCJ's weighing of testimonial evidence and the finding of injury supported by medical reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCOMPLETELY FRESH FOODSLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYADJ6680848ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONGARZA V. WORKERS' COMP. APPEALS BD.WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONMECHANISM OF INJURYREPORT OF INJURY
References
Case No. ADJ9793567
Regular
Aug 19, 2015

ROSA CAMACHO vs. RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Rosa Camacho's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied her petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal were denied. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, which detailed why the issues raised were not final determinations of substantive rights or threshold matters. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and the petition for removal was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ8594071
Regular
May 15, 2018

STEPHEN RANDALL vs. DTM ENTERPRISES, INC., PRECISION DOOR SERVICE, DONALD TAYLOR, JACQUELYN TAYLOR, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied DTM Enterprises' petition for reconsideration. DTM argued the judge erred in finding the applicant solely employed by them and that the case should be handled by an arbitrator due to an insurance dispute. However, the applicant testified he only received direction and pay from DTM, never heard of Tri-State, and no evidence of a dual employment contract was presented. The Board found no indication of employment by any entity other than DTM and that insurance coverage disputes are separate from employment determinations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDTM EnterprisesPrecision Door ServiceDonald TaylorJacquelyn TaylorCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationLumbermen's UnderwritingUninsured Employers' Benefits Trust Fundgeneral/special employmentcontractual issue
References
Case No. ADJ7469704
Regular
Feb 21, 2012

SANDIE TAYLOR vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in a maximum of four sentences: The applicant, Sandie Taylor, injured herself while participating in mandatory training for the County of Riverside's Mounted Posse. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's finding that she was not an employee. The Board determined that Taylor was performing services for the County, subject to their control and benefiting them, and thus considered her an employee under Labor Code section 3366 at the time of her injury. The case is returned for further proceedings on other issues.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANDIE TAYLORCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDEADJ7469704OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS OF FACTADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGELABOR CODE SECTION 3366SHERIFF VOLUNTEERMOUNTED POSSE
References
Case No. ADJ8334684
Regular
Sep 09, 2013

ABEL RODRIGUEZ vs. RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, LLC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Abel Rodriguez, filed a petition for reconsideration after an adverse ruling. The applicant alleged an industrial injury to his back sustained on December 31, 2011, while employed by River Ranch Fresh Foods, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the findings of the administrative law judge. The judge found the applicant’s testimony regarding the injury and its reporting to be credible and unrebutted, despite minor inconsistencies that did not materially impact his credibility. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations, affirming the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DenyingCredibilityAOE/COELabor Code Section 3202.5Witness TestimonyImpeachmentMedical EvidenceCausation
References
Case No. SAL 104703
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

GONZALEZ vs. GILROY FOODS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following the denial of a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal found no reasonable basis for the petition and remanded the case for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award fees for services rendered in connection with that petition. The WCAB affirmed the award of attorney's fees, clarifying that the WCJ lacks jurisdiction to approve fees under § 5801, which is the sole province of the WCAB upon remand.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeesRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCourt of AppealStipulation and AwardWCJFindings Order and Award
References
Case No. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
Showing 1-10 of 373 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