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. ADJ9355601
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

Kimberly Mason vs. S.E.I.U. Local 721, Cypress Insurance Company

In this case, the applicant, Kimberly Mason, sustained an injury to her left upper extremity while attending a union rally. The WCJ initially ruled she was not an employee of S.E.I.U. Local 721, but the Board granted reconsideration. Applying the principles from *Jones v. Workman's Comp. Appeals Bd.*, the Board found that the applicant was rendering services for the union, and the provision of transportation, food, and water constituted compensation. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's finding and substituted a new finding that the applicant was indeed an employee of S.E.I.U. Local 721 at the time of her injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactAdministrative Law JudgeEmployee StatusLabor Code Section 3351Labor Code Section 3357Jones v. Workman's Comp. Appeals Bd.Economic Substitutes for WagesUnion Rally
References
Case No. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ9726199
Regular
Jan 31, 2017

THEMAS ERTZMAN (Decedent) AKSHARA ERTZMAN (Widow/Applicant) vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY/ AT&T, INC., permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a previous Findings and Order, and returned the case to the judge for further proceedings. The employer sought reconsideration, arguing the union contract was improperly admitted and the judge shifted the burden of proof. The Board agreed that further development of the record was needed regarding the union contract and the decedent's union membership. This was deemed necessary for a full adjudication of the death benefit claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDecedentDeath BenefitsUnion ContractBurden of ProofAOE/COELabor Code section 5313
References
Case No. ADJ7032650
Regular
Jul 21, 2011

ROBERTA CORRAL vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the case of *Roberta Corral v. Personnel Plus, Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning provided in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. This decision affirms the prior ruling and dismisses the request for further review. The order was officially filed on July 21, 2011.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalAdministrative Law JudgePetitionDeniedPersonnel PlusNational Union Fire InsuranceRoberta CorralADJ7032650
References
Case No. ADJ3061465 (AHM 0065352) MF ADJ327493 (AHM 0141873)
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

PATTI SUE KIEHL-COLACCHIA vs. NORDSTROM, KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision regarding overlapping injuries from two separate claims with Nordstrom and Kinecta Federal Credit Union. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the cases to the trial level. This action was taken because of an apparent miscalculation of permanent disability and the need to await reporting from a newly selected Agreed Medical Evaluator. The Board ordered the two cases to be tried together after the AME report to ensure a proper record and a correct determination of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatti Sue Kiehl-ColacchioNordstromKinecta Federal Credit UnionArgonaut Insurance CompanyADJ3061465ADJ327493ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award OrderIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ9000343
Regular
Nov 22, 2013

VINCE SNELLING vs. SYAR INDUSTRIES, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Both Syar Industries and National Union Fire Insurance Company withdrew their Petitions for Reconsideration of the November 22, 2013, decision. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed these petitions. This dismissal means the original decision remains in effect as no further appeals were pursued. The case is now closed on this reconsideration matter.

Petitions for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantsSyar IndustriesNational Union Fire Insurance CompanyADJ9000343Santa Rosa District Office
References
Case No. ADJ8791212, ADJ9504979
Regular
Apr 19, 2016

HECTOR MELGAR vs. SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROTECTED INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR SCHOOLS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Hector Melgar against Sequoia Union High School District. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of the reconsideration request. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the matter regarding this specific petition.

Petition for Reconsideration withdrawnDismissed petitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSequoia Union High School DistrictProtected Insurance Program for SchoolsADJ8791212ADJ9504979San Francisco District OfficeMarguerite SweeneyFrank M. Brass
References
Case No. ADJ9816136
Regular
Sep 14, 2015

JERRY LINDSEY vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

This case involves a senior systems analyst who slipped and fell in Union Station while commuting home from work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior decision that found the injury compensable. The WCAB determined the injury is barred by the "going and coming rule" as the applicant was not on the employer's premises or benefiting the employer. Exceptions for premises line and travel expense did not apply because the employer did not control Union Station and the applicant was not paid for his commute.

Going and Coming RulePremises Line ExceptionTravel Expense ExceptionIndustrial InjurySenior Systems AnalystUnion StationLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityLACMTACompensabilitySpecial Mission
References
Case No. ADJ2112759 (ANA 0406243)
Regular
Feb 22, 2009

Matt Todd vs. INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a finding that applicant Matt Todd sustained an industrial injury during his commute. The Board determined that Todd's motorcycle accident en route from the Union Hall to the employer's premises was barred by the "going and coming" rule. Todd failed to establish that the trip was an extraordinary mission or that the commute involved a special risk distinct from the general public. Furthermore, the Board found insufficient evidence that the Union Hall acted as the employer's agent in dispatching Todd.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMotorcycle AccidentCommuteUnion HallCasual LaborerGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission DoctrineSpecial Risk Exception
References
Case No. ADJ6634260
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

MELCHOR ELIZARRARAS vs. MIKE BUBALO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior finding that the parties were not subject to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process. The Board found the original decision was based on unclear issues and the record may support a valid ADR process applicable to the applicant's injury. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on whether the applicant's injury is covered by a valid ADR system under Labor Code §3201.5.

Labor Code §3201.5Alternative Dispute ResolutionADR systemcollective bargaining agreementSouthern California District Council of LaborersMike Bubalo Construction CompanySeabright Insurance Companyindustrial injurylow back injuryright shoulder injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 274 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