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. ADJ9343159, ADJ1368987 (MON0362038)
Regular
Sep 15, 2017

JAMES ISAAC vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed United Airlines' petition as procedurally improper. United Airlines filed a "Petition to Set Aside Order Approving Compromise and Release" instead of the correct "Petition for Reconsideration." The WCAB will return the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address United Airlines' original petition. This ruling does not substantively rule on the merits of setting aside the compromise and release.

Petition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDismissedGallagher Bassett ServicesUnited AirlinesADJ9343159ADJ1368987
References
Case No. ADJ8490774
Regular
Jan 06, 2014

JAIME ROSPIGLIOSI vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied United Airlines' petition for removal. The defendant's request for a new Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) was denied because the original QME selection process was valid and timely. The WCAB found the petition lacked merit, bordered on frivolous, and admonished defense counsel for failing to include their State Bar number. The existing QME's reports will stand, and the case will proceed without further delay.

Petition for RemovalWCABUnited AirlinesGallagher Bassett ServicesPQMEPanel QMEDr. CremetaMedical Unit8 CCR 30(b)duplicative request
References
Case No. AHM 0077308 AHM 0075910
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

CLIFFORD GAMBLE vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, ET AL.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed United Airlines' petition for reconsideration as untimely filed. United Airlines sought to clarify VRMA liability, arguing it shouldn't extend to periods the applicant interrupted rehabilitation services. The WCAB found no bad faith or frivolousness, noting the petition was a reasonable attempt to clarify a potential ambiguity in the original decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnited AirlinesGallagher Bassett ServicesClifford GamblePetition for ReconsiderationDecision After RemittiturVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMAQualified Injured WorkerTimely Filing
References
Case No. ADJ6721897
Regular
May 15, 2012

ERIC BOLDEN vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision in the case of Bolden v. United Airlines. The Board rescinded the WCJ's prior decision and returned the matter for further proceedings and a new decision. This action is not a final determination of the case's merits. Both parties retain their rights regarding future appeals.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ's ReportGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionFurther ProceedingsDecision After ReconsiderationTrial LevelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric BoldenUnited Airlines
References
Case No. SAC 289384
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

NICK MILIVOJEVICH vs. UNITED AIRLINES

This case involves a clerical error in a prior award of attorney's fees for applicant Nick Milivojevich against United Airlines. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board corrected the award to reflect the correct appellate attorney's fees of $\$ 6,050.00$ and disallowed costs, maintaining its continuing jurisdiction to rectify such errors. The corrected award is payable to Farrell, Fraulob & Brown, A Professional Corporation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorOpinion and AwardAttorney's FeesAppellate Attorney's FeesCostsContinuing JurisdictionToccalinoMorganUnited Airlines
References
Case No. ADJ526691 (LBO 0329338) ADJ3636578 (VNO 0535001)
Regular
Oct 22, 2019

JITKA VAN DYNE-PARMET vs. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to United Airlines regarding a 100% permanent disability award for Jitka Van Dyne-Parmet. Defendant argued the award improperly added multiple disabilities instead of combining them per the applicable rating schedule. The Board rescinded the award due to an inadequate trial record lacking clear stipulations and admitted evidence. The case is returned to the trial level to prepare a proper record for a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnited AirlinesPermissibly Self-InsuredSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminersMultiple Disabilities Table1997 Rating Schedule
References
Case No. SFO 0457920
Regular
Jul 02, 2007

WILFRIED MEYER vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over the apportionment of permanent disability for an airframe mechanic who sustained a spinal and knee injury. The defendant, United Airlines, seeks reconsideration of the original award, arguing the judge erred in not apportioning the applicant's disability to pre-existing conditions as supported by Dr. Chen's opinion. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the record requires further development on apportionment consistent with recent case law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWilfried MeyerUnited AirlinesGallagher Bassett ServicesFindings and AwardReconsiderationIndustrial InjurySpineRight KneePermanent Partial Disability
References
Case No. ADJ526691 (LBO 0329338)
Regular
Feb 10, 2020

JITKA VAN DYNE-PARMET vs. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted United Airlines' Petition for Reconsideration to amend a finding of fact. The amendment corrects the permanent disability award to exclude an incorrect calculation based on the State Average Weekly Wage increase, as the applicant's injury occurred before the relevant statutory change. The Board otherwise affirmed the original award, deeming the applicant entitled to a 100% permanent disability award at the established weekly rate.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability Award100% disabilitySAWW increasesLabor Code § 4659(c)Decision After ReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardWCJ ReportSedgwick Claims Management Services
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. ADJ1509936 (MON 0335614) ADJ1185943 (MON 0335615) ADJ1317308 (MON 0335616)
Regular
May 08, 2009

LINDA ROSENBERG vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant seeking vocational rehabilitation benefits denied by the WCJ. The applicant argues the benefits should extend beyond July 30, 2007, due to the employer's failure to provide timely notice. The Board granted reconsideration to address the applicability of the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5 on the WCJ's jurisdiction to award benefits after the repeal's effective date. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, potentially in light of related en banc decisions. The Board encourages informal resolution of the disputed issues.

Vocational rehabilitationVRMALabor Code Section 139.5Labor Code Section 4636(a)WCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPERMANENT AND STATIONARYREHABILITATION UNITADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGERECONSIDERATION
References
Showing 1-10 of 768 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