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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ31300041 (VNO 0552733) ADJ2893120 (VNO 0552734)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

Cesar Ramirez vs. Time Warner Cable, ESIS, INC.

This case concerns a denial of reconsideration for a workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board reaffirmed its prior decision that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury arising from a motor vehicle accident. The applicant's alleged ventricular fibrillation was deemed a spontaneous event unrelated to his employment, and his belated recollection of the accident was not credited as substantial evidence of industrial causation. The Board maintained its authority to reweigh evidence and reject the findings of the administrative law judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCesar RamirezTime Warner CableESIS Inc.petition for reconsiderationindustrial causationmotor vehicle accidentlone ventricular fibrillationburden of proofdelayed memory
References
Case No. ADJ3634893
Regular
Mar 09, 2008

CHANNEL GREEN vs. TIME WARNER CABLE, ACE/USA c/o ESIS, INC.

Here's a summary for a lawyer: This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses a petition for removal filed by the applicant. The dismissal is based on the pending settlement of the case. No further action will be taken on the petition, and the file will be returned for submission of the settlement to the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge.

Petition for RemovalSettlement PendingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalWCJDistrict OfficeTime Warner CableACE/USAESISInc.
References
Case No. ADJ6784503-M; ADJ7336025
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

WILLIAM AGUILAR vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

This case involves William Aguilar's claim for psychiatric injury against Time Warner Cable, stemming from two periods of employment. The Administrative Law Judge found Aguilar sustained industrial psychiatric injuries in both roles and ruled the defendant waived the "good faith personnel action" defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). While the majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the defense was not raised properly and not proven even if considered, Commissioner Lowe dissented. Commissioner Lowe argued the defense was timely raised and that the employer's reassignment of territories constituted a good faith personnel action, thereby barring compensation.

Labor Code 3208.3(h)Good Faith Personnel ActionPsychiatric InjuryCumulative Industrial InjuryReconsiderationWCJ ReportDissenting OpinionObjective Good Faith StandardSubstantial CausePredominant Cause
References
Case No. ADJ2263476 (VNO 0318779)
Regular
Apr 20, 2016

DARLENE FERRONA vs. WARNER BROTHERS, TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO; ZURICH LOS ANGELES

This case concerns Darlene Ferrona's entitlement to 24/7 home health care following a psyche and fibromyalgia injury. The defendant, Warner Brothers, sought reconsideration of an order granting these services, arguing that utilization review only authorized limited care and that new prescriptions were required per Labor Code section 4600(h). The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's prior authorization of 24/7 home health care by treating physicians and subsequent stipulation established ongoing need. The Board clarified that while a prescription date is crucial for liability, a new prescription is not always necessary to continue approved, ongoing home health care if the applicant's condition has not changed, citing the precedent of *Patterson v. The Oaks Farm*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDarlene FerronaWarner BrothersZurich Los Angelesindustrial injurypsychefibromyalgiahome health careutilization reviewsubstantial medical evidence
References
Case No. ADJ9737947
Regular
Apr 15, 2016

DOUGLAS CRINGEAN vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, WARNER BROS. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving Douglas Cringean and Warner Bros. Studio Facilities, concerns a clerical error in a prior decision's caption. The Board's decision served on April 11, 2016, incorrectly stated the caption as "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration." The Board is correcting this to the accurate caption, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration." This correction is permissible as clerical errors can be rectified at any time without further proceedings.

Clerical ErrorCaption CorrectionPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAMENDED captionSupplemental ProceedingsADJ9737947Warner Bros. Studio FacilitiesDouglas Cringean
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ9439731
Regular
Feb 15, 2018

MAURICIO PALOMO vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIO ENTERPRISES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Warner Brothers' Petition for Reconsideration. While the petition was timely filed due to defective service of the original order, the Board ultimately denied reconsideration on the merits. The Board adopted the Judge's report and reasoning, but clarified that reconsideration was not dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportLabor Code § 5811Interpreting ServicesProof of ServiceDefective ServiceDue ProcessTolled TimeShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ2023756 (SAC 0323234)
Regular
Aug 30, 2013

VICTORIA BRESHEARS vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Reconsideration due to discrepancies regarding the timeliness of its filing. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, requiring the employer to provide proof of timely electronic filing via EAMS, specifically the Batch ID and submission date/time. If the employer fails to demonstrate the petition was filed before 5:00 PM on July 8, 2013, it will be dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFindings and OrderWCJEAMSElectronic Adjudication Management SystemBatch IDTimely FiledProof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ7472541
Regular
Sep 02, 2014

MIRNA REYES vs. PREMIER BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition not being timely-filed, as the applicant's representative received personal service of the underlying order. Even if the petition had been considered timely, the Board indicated it would have been denied on the merits. Consequently, the Board formally ordered the dismissal of the petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionTimely-filedPersonal ServiceOrder Dismissing LienWCJ Report20-day time limitService by mailMeritsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,699 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