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. ADJ7665032
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

LILIANA GIL vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE for SAFETY NATIONAL (KY)

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. and Sedgwick Claims Management Service. The defendants sought to dismiss the lien of Jacobs Chiropractic Clinic due to the timing of its lien activation fee payment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the removal, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report. The judge reasoned that Labor Code §4903.06(a)(4) allows lien claimants to submit proof of payment at a lien conference, and here the DOR was not deemed filed until the fee was paid. Furthermore, the judge noted that the defendants' counsel failed to provide their State Bar number as required.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ ReportDeclaration of ReadinessLien Activation FeeDocument DeficiencyLabor Code §4903.06Figueroa v. B.C. DoeringDue ProcessReparable Harm
References
2
Case No. ADJ6805766
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

YESENIA TORRES vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES dba VALLARTA SUPERMARKET NO. 19, CNA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal. The defendant argued that continuing a hearing for further medical documentation would cause irreparable harm and that discovery should have closed. However, the Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration after a final decision would be an adequate remedy. The applicant's due diligence in obtaining a required report from the primary treating physician, despite conflicting information about its transcription status, supported the WCJ's decision to continue the matter.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 4061.5Primary Treating PhysicianPQMEStatute of LimitationsDue DiligenceInterlocutory OrderSubstantial Prejudice
References
2
Case No. ADJ8186610
Regular
Apr 11, 2014

MARIA RODRIGUEZ vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., dba VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Lien claimant North Valley Diagnostics' Petition for Reconsideration was granted after its lien was dismissed for failure to appear at a lien conference. The Appeals Board found sufficient cause, primarily an inadvertent calendaring error supported by prior diligent actions like paying fees and appearing at an earlier conference, to set aside the dismissal. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ. Commissioner Lowe dissented, agreeing with the WCJ that the calendaring error did not constitute good cause for non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ConferenceLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to DismissCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryDeli AttendantCalendaring Error
References
1
Case No. ADJ10230241
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

SAUL ROMERO vs. CARNICERIA NUEVA VALLARTAS, INC.

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's findings, remanding the case for further development of the medical record. The defendant argued the applicant failed to prove an industrial injury, citing a lack of substantial medical evidence. The Board found that no comprehensive medical-legal report from an agreed or panel QME, nor a complete report from the applicant's primary treating physician addressing causation, was present. The case is returned to the trial level for a new decision after a comprehensive medical-legal report is obtained, likely through an agreed or panel QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryherniauninsuredsubstantial medical evidencereconsiderationmedical-legal reportprimary treating physiciancausationreasonable medical probability
References
5
Case No. ADJ7304100, ADJ7941132, ADJ7941133, ADJ7941134
Regular
Oct 28, 2011

MARI CARMEN MERCADO vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release agreement. The applicant, Mari Carmen Mercado, sought to withdraw from the settlement, claiming she did not understand the document and found the $10,000 settlement inadequate. The Board found that the applicant was represented by counsel and had the settlement explained by a certified Spanish interpreter, indicating she understood its terms. Furthermore, the settlement addressed disputed medical evidence and a potential defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), making the Board's denial of reconsideration appropriate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryTaqueria CookSpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaAgreed Medical ExaminerLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Post-Termination Defense
References
0
Case No. ADJ11116151
Regular
Jun 11, 2018

JOSE VILLANUEVA vs. VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by Jose Villanueva. This dismissal occurred because the underlying matter had already proceeded to trial and been submitted to a new administrative law judge. The WCAB clarified that any party aggrieved by the eventual decision can seek reconsideration at that time.

Petition for RemovalMootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReconsiderationDismissalTrialAggrieved PersonSubmittedAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ11616593 ADJ11616594 ADJ11616595 ADJ11616596
Regular
Nov 06, 2019

MARIA RODRIGUEZ vs. VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal from an applicant following an administrative law judge's order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, deeming the ALJ's order interlocutory and not a "final" determination of substantive rights. The Board also denied the removal petition, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Ultimately, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed and the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ DecisionReplacement Panel QME
References
6
Case No. ADJ8861723
Regular
Aug 27, 2018

ARACELI FLORES vs. VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS/SANTA ISABEL ENTERPRISES, CLAREDON INSURANCE

Lien claimant Mesa Pharmacy sought removal of a WCJ's order that deferred the critical issue of whether its lien was stayed under Labor Code § 4615. Mesa argued this denial of due process and prejudicially delayed adjudication of its lien. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the matter for proceedings consistent with a prior consolidation order. This consolidation addressed common issues regarding Mesa Pharmacy's liens and potential stays under § 4615 due to criminal proceedings against related parties.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4615Stayed LienCriminally Charged ProviderDue ProcessConsolidated CasesMaster FileWCJOrder of Consolidation
References
1
Case No. ADJ7638471, ADJ7724215
Regular
Jul 11, 2013

SERGIO ANDRADE vs. JOYA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC dba VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to rescind an order requiring them to advance permanent disability indemnity based on undisputed medical evidence. The Board found that the administrative law judge's statement was not an order but rather a restatement of Labor Code section 4650(b)(1), which requires advances only when there is a reasonable estimate of permanent disability due. Therefore, the defendant was not aggrieved at this stage.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability IndemnityUndisputed Medical EvidenceLabor Code section 4650(b)(1)Administrative Law JudgeTemporary Disability IndemnityAdvance PaymentsAggrieved PartyDismissed Petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ8900810
Regular
Sep 29, 2015

RAMIRO MONTOYA vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition to Disqualify a judge due to multiple procedural deficiencies. The petition was improperly filed under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6, lacked specificity, was not supported by the required affidavit, and was not served on the applicant. Furthermore, the case had already been resolved by a Compromise and Release agreement, rendering the disqualification issue moot. The Board admonished defense counsel for the petition's flaws and the waste of resources.

Petition for DisqualificationCode of Civil Procedure § 170.6Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to Peremptorily Disqualificationaffidavitdeclaration under penalty of perjuryOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasemootnessLabor Code section 5311priority conference
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14 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