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. ADJ8924427
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

JAVIER CHAVARRIA vs. JUAN RAMON VASQUEZ doing business as JRV CONSTRUCTION, INC., TOWER SELECT INSURANCE, CHRISTINE BAKER, DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, as administrator of the UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Tower Select Insurance's petition for removal due to multiple procedural defects. The petition, styled as a request to reset trial dates and strike the record, was not properly verified as required by WCAB Rule 10450(e). Furthermore, the petition lacked specific references to the record and legal principles, violating WCAB Rule 10846. The WCAB also noted that reconsideration is only available for final orders, and this petition did not meet that criterion.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJAVIER CHAVARRIAJUAN RAMON VASQUEZJRV CONSTRUCTIONTOWER SELECT INSURANCECHRISTINE BAKERUNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUNDPetition for RemovalWCJReport and Recommendation
References
0
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. ADJ9 657673, ADJ9 632441, ADJ9 697740, ADJ9 832297, ADJ9 834527, ADJ9 842328, ADJ9 919901, ADJ9 919978
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

KELLY FINN vs. OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kelly Finn's Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal." The petition failed to meet the legal requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852, which mandate specific details regarding grounds, evidence, and legal principles. The WCAB found the petition lacked specific references to the record and the evidence it relied upon.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationskeletal petitionLabor Code section 5902WCAB Rulesmaterial evidencespecific references to the recordprinciples of lawdeny or dismissWCJ report
References
3
Case No. ADJ7859333
Regular
Mar 06, 2014

RUSSELL WYNN vs. ROBERT TURMAN RANCH, ZENITH INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior order. The applicant alleged fraud and newly discovered evidence, but failed to provide specific references to the record or legal principles, violating WCAB Rule 10846. Furthermore, the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the Employment Development Department (EDD) for State Disability Insurance (SDI) claims. The applicant had already pursued his SDI claim with the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, which determined no further benefits were owed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalState Disability Insurance (SDI)Employment Development Department (EDD)California Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardWCJFraudNewly Discovered EvidenceRule 10846
References
0
Case No. ADJ8078674
Regular
Dec 28, 2015

AGNES ROBINSON vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Agnes Robinson's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The WCAB found the petition to be "skeletal" and lacking specific legal grounds or detailed references to the record. Applicant's arguments, essentially that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in not finding injury to her right hand and psyche, were insufficient. The dismissal is based on failure to comply with Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10842 and 10846 regarding the required contents of such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code Section 5902WCAB Rule 10846WCAB Rule 10842Findings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineLumbar Spine
References
4
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. 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. 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 10,471 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