Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ4363797 (SJO 0242100)

Regular

Mar 18, 2011

JOHN TRAN vs. TUN KEE NOODLE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by both a lien claimant and the defendant regarding a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow for a more thorough review of the factual and legal issues. The Board requires further study to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications must be sent to the Appeals Board's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationTun Kee NoodleCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCambridge Integrated Services GroupLien ClaimantStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After Reconsideration

References

Case No. ADJ4363797

Regular

Jun 27, 2012

JOHN TRAN vs. TUNG KEE NOODLE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION in liquidation

This case concerns whether the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) can depose Lee Caballero, a non-attorney representative for lien claimant Dan Ho, D.C., regarding his relationship with Dr. Ho. CIGA seeks to determine if the lien was assigned to Caballero, which would exclude it from CIGA's coverage. The Board rescinded the prior order denying the deposition and allowed CIGA to depose Caballero about his agreement with Dr. Ho, provided a written agreement is not produced. However, the deposition is limited to questions concerning the assignment of the lien, excluding confidential communications about the claim's merits.

CIGAlien claimantnon-attorney lay representativedepositionassignmentInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(B)confidentiality privilegeattorney-client privilegeattorney work product privilegecase of first impression

References

Case No. ADJ2219719 (VNO 0499919)

Regular

Jul 02, 2009

ELMER COREAS vs. PEKING NOODLE COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 29 days after the decision was served, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit plus a potential 5-day mailing extension. The WCAB emphasized that filing deadlines are jurisdictional and that the Board lacks the power to grant untimely petitions. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER COREASPEKING NOODLE COMPANYZENITH INSURANCE COMPANYADJ2219719VNO 0499919OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING RECONSIDERATIONpetition for reconsiderationuntimelyLabor Code section 5903

References

Case No. ADJ1023513

Regular

Jan 26, 2015

MAXIMIANO MONJE vs. YUAN TEN NOODLE CO.; FARMERS MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The petition was dismissed because it was not signed or verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Additionally, the WCAB found that the issue of sanctions raised in the petition was not based on a final order, as interlocutory procedural orders are not subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition defective on two grounds and ordered it dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalLabor Code section 5902VerificationSanctionsFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial Orders

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jin Liu v. Tak Chan Yeung

The claimant was shot during an armed robbery at Yang Kee’s Chinese Kitchen No. 1 and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant was an employee of the restaurant owners, Tak Chan Yeung and Henry Yang, who were found to be in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 for being uninsured. The owners appealed this decision, arguing the claimant was merely a visitor. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, including conflicting testimony and a $7,000 payment made to the claimant by one of the owners.

Workers' Compensation BoardEmployment StatusUninsured EmployerWorkplace InjuryAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentFactual DisputeWorkers' Compensation Law § 50Chinese Restaurant

References

Showing 1-5 of 5 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

JOHN TRAN vs. TUN KEE NOODLE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP

JOHN TRAN vs. TUNG KEE NOODLE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION in liquidation

ELMER COREAS vs. PEKING NOODLE COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

MAXIMIANO MONJE vs. YUAN TEN NOODLE CO.; FARMERS MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalLabor Code section 5902VerificationSanctionsFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial Orders

Claim of Jin Liu v. Tak Chan Yeung