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. ADJ7628890
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

ELIZA ARRIAGA vs. CALIFORNIA TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Eliza Arriaga, who sought to overturn a dismissal of her workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, upholding the dismissal based on WCAB Rule 10582 for lack of prosecution. The Board found the applicant's attorney's arguments misplaced and confirmed the dismissal was appropriate under Rule 10582, not the rule cited by the applicant. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report in its entirety.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportWCAB Rule 10582dismissallack of prosecutionnotice of intention to dismissRoth v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.WCAB Rule 10562failure to appear
References
2
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. ADJ9772444
Regular
Jan 09, 2017

JUAN ROBLES vs. SAN-MAR CONSTRUCTION, STARR IDEMNITY AND LIABILITY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The applicant, Juan Robles, sought reconsideration of a dismissal order based on lack of prosecution under WCAB Rule 10582. The applicant argued good cause existed to overturn the dismissal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition for reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that dismissal was unwarranted. The WCAB rescinded the dismissal order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalLack of ProsecutionGood CauseWCAB Rule 10582Report of WCJGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionFurther ProceedingsDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ6786901
Regular
Aug 24, 2010

IDELFONSO RODRIGUEZ vs. GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANTS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROP. CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's premature petition for dismissal of a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the prior order was interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the defendant's request for removal, finding no basis for extraordinary relief due to lack of demonstrated prejudice. The WCAB affirmed the judge's denial of dismissal as premature under Board Rule 10582.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderLabor CodeSubstantive RightLiabilityApplication for Adjudication
References
7
Case No. ADJ2065496 (LAO 0777249) ADJ4050189 (LAO 0774705)
Regular
Jan 21, 2010

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY/FOOD 4 LESS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In this case, the defendant appealed a Rehabilitation Unit Determination, but their appeal was deemed untimely and improper by the WCJ. The defendant argued that filing a Declaration of Readiness (DOR) with their petition was not required and that the governing WCAB Rule was invalid. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the defendant's appeal was indeed untimely and improper under the then-current WCAB Rule 10955, which mandated the filing of a DOR for such appeals. The Board also upheld the validity of WCAB Rule 10955, confirming the Board's authority to establish procedural rules.

Rehabilitation UnitDeclaration of ReadinessWCAB Rule 10955Labor Code section 4645Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factuntimely appealadministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalphs Grocery Company
References
1
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. ADJ6502775, ADJ6498620, ADJ8109003, ADJ8115890
Regular
May 09, 2014

MARIA POHYAR vs. DEY LP, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the issue of whether the defendant Zurich is entitled to a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was only before the WCJ based on a procedural rule regarding appointment notification forms, not ex parte communications. The WCAB clarified that issues of ex parte communications and the applicability of related statutes and rules were not yet properly before the Board. Therefore, the applicant's request for the WCAB to assert jurisdiction and rule against Zurich on the QME panel issue was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJurisdictionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel QMEDivision of Workers' Compensation (DWC) RulesLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical Director
References
7
Case No. ADJ3447287 (SBR 0263874) ADJ3565604 (ANA 0306676) ADJ3955433 (ANA 0306675)
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

PATSY HENDRY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, PERMISSIBLY SELF INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition to disqualify a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCAB found that the alleged expressions of opinion by the WCJ did not demonstrate bias or an unqualified opinion as to the merits of the case, but rather reflected rulings based on evidence and law. The board also clarified that erroneous rulings do not constitute grounds for disqualification. Furthermore, the WCAB concluded that the petition, while not subject to strict timeliness rules due to the timing of the alleged events, was still ultimately denied on its merits.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJCode of Civil Procedure section 641formed or expressed an unqualified opinionexistence of a state of mindenmity against or bias towardTaylor v. Industrial Acc. Com.Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.Kreling v. Superior CourtMcEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co.
References
7
Case No. ADJ10492342
Regular
Apr 27, 2023

JASMINE ORBERG vs. INTER SOURCES, INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision, finding applicant Jasmine Orberg was an employee of Inter Sources, Inc. at the time of her injury. The WCAB determined that Orberg's activities in the training program, including interacting with customers and providing status updates, established an employer-employee relationship under the Borello standard. Furthermore, the WCAB ruled that the "going and coming" rule did not bar her claim because the employer provided transportation, which falls under an exception to the rule. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInternshipMotor Vehicle AccidentGoing and Coming RuleEmployer-employee relationshipBorello standardIndependent contractorPrima facie caseAgencyProvided transportation
References
18
Case No. ADJ1622633 (VEN 0115623)
Regular
May 15, 2012

SALVADOR CONTRERAS vs. M&C FARM LABOR, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE PASADENA, PAULA INSURANCE

This case involves Salvador Contreras's petition to reopen his workers' compensation claim for new and further disability. The original claim was venued in Ventura/Oxnard, but Contreras filed his reopen petition in Los Angeles. The WCJ denied the petition based on former WCAB Rule 10390, which required filing in the proper district office and did not excuse non-compliance for filing in an incorrect office. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed this decision, holding that current WCAB Rule 10397, which allows filing in any office, applied as a procedural change. The Court also found that even under former Rule 10390, Contreras demonstrated excusable neglect, thus compelling the WCAB to grant reconsideration and return the case for a decision on the merits.

RemittiturPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsLabor Code 5410Labor Code 5804WCAB Rule 10390WCAB Rule 10397Excusable NeglectNew and Further DisabilityCourt of Appeal
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 14,378 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