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. ADJ667038 (STK 0193341) ADJ4685475 (STK 0199423) ADJ1347499 (STK 0199424)
Regular
Sep 23, 2009

Valerie Obasi vs. UNITED CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Valerie Obasi's petition for reconsideration due to untimeliness. The petition was filed 30 days after the decision, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied reconsideration based on the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings. The ALJ found Obasi's claims of injury to be not credible due to surveillance video contradicting her reported limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalTimelinessLabor Code Section 5903CredibilitySurveillance VideotapeIndustrial InjuryReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law Judge
References
3
Case No. ADJ4100246
Regular
Sep 06, 2011

VALERIE AYERS vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

This case involves Valerie Ayers claiming industrial injury due to mold exposure. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. Specifically, the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Reynolds, must review industrial hygienist testimony and air quality reports, issue a supplemental report, and allow for depositions and the submission of prior reports into evidence. The Board also granted removal on its own motion to consider the defendant's response regarding procedural points.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorIndustrial HygienistAir QualityMold ExposureTrial TestimonySupplemental ReportDepositionRemoval
References
1
Case No. ADJ9076607
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

VALERIE COLES vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Valerie Coles, against the County of Alameda. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, ruling that the WCJ's decision was not a "final" order as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, the applicant's attempts to challenge the interim decision through these procedural avenues were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
6
Case No. ADJ5631403 ADJ8129890 ADJ9031437 ADJ7129072 ADJ8214161
Regular
Aug 12, 2019

VALERIE SPENCER vs. MENDON AND MENDON, INC., dba MENDON'S NURSERY

This case concerns Valerie Spencer's claim that her employer, Mendon and Mendon, Inc., violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating her employment due to her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board rescinded a prior finding, concluding that the employer's actions constituted discrimination under section 132a. This decision was based on the close temporal proximity between the notice of representation and termination, and the employer's failure to establish a legitimate business reason. Issues regarding penalty amounts, lost wages, and reinstatement are deferred for further proceedings.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimTerminationNotice of RepresentationPrima Facie CaseBusiness Realities DefensePretextLost Wages
References
0
Case No. ADJ1294835
Regular
Apr 17, 2013

VALERIE LUGO vs. YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves Valerie Lugo alleging a work injury from an altercation with a coworker, Aikiko. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found no industrial injury. The WCJ discredited Lugo's testimony based on inconsistencies and a coworker's statement portraying her as aggressive. Medical examination by Dr. Forsyth shortly after the alleged injury revealed no evidence of trauma. The WCJ concluded that an employment event was not predominant in causing any alleged psychiatric injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingIndustrial InjuryHuman Resources AssistantLeft Shoulder InjuryLeft Breast InjuryUpper Back InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. POM 267164
Regular
Aug 13, 2007

VALERIE ALLEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA / DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES / LANTERMAN DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over whether a lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, Inc. (Premier), was properly licensed to provide medical services to the applicant, Valerie Allen. The defendant argues Premier failed to obtain a required fictitious-name permit from the Medical Board. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior finding that Premier was properly licensed and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine compliance with licensure and permit requirements, distinguishing between providing medical treatment and operating as an "outpatient setting."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantFictitious Name PermitMedical BoardBusiness and Professions CodeLicensed ProfessionalOutpatient SettingClinicBurden of ProofLicensure Requirements
References
3
Case No. ADJ5631403 MF ADJ8129890 ADJ9031437 ADJ8214161 ADJ7129072
Regular
Oct 25, 2013

VALERIE SPENCER vs. MENDON AND MENDON, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION BY SEDGWICK FOR FREMONT INSURANCE, In Liquidation, CLARENDON By AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This is an order granting a defendant's petition for reconsideration in multiple workers' compensation cases filed by Valerie Spencer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found reconsideration necessary due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. All future filings must be submitted in writing directly to the Board's Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or electronically. The Board will issue a decision after reconsideration following further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationReconsideration GRANTEDCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONFREMONT INSURANCEIn LiquidationSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDEMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANYVALERIE SPENCERADJ5631403 MF
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2012

Williams v. Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center

Valerie E. Williams filed an action against Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and other defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiff Williams filed objections to the R&R, particularly contesting the recommendation on her Title VII retaliation claim. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, upon de novo review of the contested portions and clear error review of the uncontested, adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams's claims, specifically noting a lack of causal connection for retaliation and insufficient evidence for a hostile work environment or due process violations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSummary JudgmentProcedural Due ProcessHostile Work EnvironmentMedical Negligence AllegationsPublic Health LawHospital EmploymentMagistrate Judge ReviewFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evan

The petitioners, Valerie C. (biological mother) and Diane F. (life partner), seek legal recognition of their mutual status as parents to their six-year-old son, Evan, whom they have raised together since birth. This is presented as the first such application in New York. The court appointed a guardian ad litem and two social workers, all of whom recommended granting the petition, finding it to be in Evan's best interest. The adoption would provide Evan with important legal rights, economic security, and emotional benefits by formally recognizing his family unit. The court scrutinizes New York law and finds no statutory obstacle, interpreting Domestic Relations Law § 117 (1) flexibly to allow Valerie C. to retain her parental rights alongside Diane F.'s adoption, citing precedent and the paramount importance of the child's best interests. The court also affirms that parental sexual orientation is not a reason to deny adoption, ultimately granting the petition.

Second-parent adoptionSame-sex adoptionParental rightsBest interests of the childDomestic Relations LawEquitable power of courtHomosexual parentingNon-traditional familiesFamily lawChild welfare
References
40
Case No. ADJ7899192, ADJ7902366
Regular
Oct 21, 2019

VALERIE DAILEY vs. SCRIPPS HEALTH

The applicant sought reconsideration of a finding that her psychiatric injury was not a compensable consequence of her industrial neck and elbow injuries. The Board found that the prior QME's report, which applicant sought to admit, should have been considered as it was not properly excluded. The Board also noted that the subsequent QME's report did not review the prior QME's findings, potentially rendering it incomplete. Consequently, the Board rescinded the award and returned the matter for further proceedings to admit the prior QME's report and allow the subsequent QME to review it.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric InjuryCompensable ConsequenceQualified Medical EvaluatorQME ReportAdmissibility of EvidenceMedical EvaluationFurther ProceedingsFindings and AwardReconsideration
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 25 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