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. ADJ7426008
Regular
May 02, 2016

JOE TUCKER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for reconsideration filed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge (WCJ), which found that Joe Tucker, a Plumber II at Corcoran State Prison, was entitled to the heart presumption under Labor Code § 3212.2. The WCJ determined that Tucker's duties supervising inmate work crews, which involved daily threats and exposure to dangerous conditions, constituted "custodial duties" within the meaning of the statute. The WCAB specifically excluded certain paragraphs from the WCJ's report from incorporation in its order.

Labor Code § 3212.2heart presumptioncustodial dutiesPlumber IIinmate work crewscorrectional officersadministrative segregationsecurity housinginmate threatsextraction squad
References
6
Case No. ADJ7816135
Regular
May 07, 2012

BRYAN FLICKER vs. COUNTY OF BUTTE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding of industrial injury for a correctional lieutenant. The WCJ had applied Labor Code section 3213.3, which presumes lower back impairments in peace officers required to wear duty belts. The Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant was required to wear a duty belt as a condition of employment as a peace officer, which is a prerequisite for the presumption's application. Therefore, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case for a determination of industrial injury without reference to the duty belt presumption, allowing for further record development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBryan FlickerCounty of ButteADJ7816135Labor Code section 3213.3correctional lieutenantcumulative injurylow back impairmentpeace officerduty belt presumption
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. ADJ9311311
Regular
Jul 18, 2014

JUANA FIGUEROA vs. LOS ANGELES AIRPORT MARRIOTT/MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration after the WCJ denied her claim for self-procured medical treatment. The applicant contended the employer breached its duty to provide timely treatment within its Medical Provider Network (MPN), entitling her to seek care outside the network at the employer's expense. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the employer did not breach its duty, as the applicant's communications were unclear and did not effectively request treatment. Therefore, the employer retained control over the applicant's medical care within its MPN.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNSelf-procure medical treatmentPrimary treating physicianExpedited hearingPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative trauma injuryDWC-1 Claim FormNotice of injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ2596572 (MON 0357137)
Regular
May 29, 2018

CRISTINA CORIA vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA

This case involves a police officer's claim for industrial injury, specifically to her low back. The applicant contends the WCJ erred by not applying the Labor Code section 3213.2 "duty belt presumption" and improperly apportioning cervical spine disability. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, finding the independent medical evaluator's opinions did not properly rebut the presumption. The case is returned to the trial level for a determination on the applicability of the duty belt presumption and whether the injury manifested within the statutory timeframe. Issues regarding apportionment are preserved for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPolice OfficerCumulative InjuryBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBilateral Cubital Tunnel SyndromePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 3213.2Duty Belt Presumption
References
0
Case No. ADJ15605011 ADJ16563992
Regular
Sep 02, 2025

ATEFA SAMADI vs. AMAZON

The applicant, Atefa Samadi, filed a Petition for Disqualification against the WCJ following an expedited hearing. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition on the merits, citing Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, which govern the grounds for disqualification. The WCAB found that the petition did not present sufficient facts to establish disqualification, and a judge's expressions of opinion or erroneous rulings in the discharge of official duties are not evidence of bias. The WCJ's report detailed past hearings where the applicant exhibited disruptive behavior and the WCJ's attempts to ensure due process while managing complex issues.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641WCJ biasunqualified opinionenmitybiasWCAB Rule 10960affidavitdeclaration
References
14
Case No. ADJ9930313
Regular
Oct 30, 2017

JAM KWONG vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant, Jam Kwong, who sought workers' compensation benefits. The defense petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the administrative law judge (WCJ) erred in classifying Kwong's occupation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report. The WCJ found that while Kwong's core duties involved cooking, his role also integrally included supervising inmates and maintaining safety, warranting the chosen occupational group. The Board gave significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to overturn it.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgecredibility determinationoccupational grouppermanent disabilityDuty Statementinmate supervisionculinary equipmentphysical
References
0
Case No. VNO 0450531
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

NELSON PIMENTEL (Deceased) CLAUDIA CISNEROS, Guardian Ad Litem for SUMMER PIMENTEL vs. DAYNITE FACILITIES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address an attorney's fee dispute and a request for disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCAB increased the attorney's fee awarded to Ronald Ehrman to $4,800.00, finding that he had cured prior notification defects regarding his adverse interest in seeking additional fees. Additionally, the WCAB disqualified the original WCJ, finding that his criticisms of Ehrman's conduct created an appearance of bias, and reassigned the case to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsAttorney's FeesGuardian Ad LitemReconsiderationDisqualificationWCJAdverse InterestEthics ViolationsPenalties
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. ADJ17146948; ADJ17146930; ADJ15040609
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

WAYNE BLOSSER vs. RB SPENCER, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

Applicant Wayne Blosser sustained multiple industrial injuries, leading to a WCJ award for home modifications, including a mobile home construction and interim ADA-compliant housing, citing the defendant's failure to timely investigate treatment needs. Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing due process violations, lack of WCJ jurisdiction over home modifications, and insufficient evidentiary support for the award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's findings that the defendant had ample notice to investigate and that the issue fell within the WCJ's jurisdiction given the parties' stipulations on medical necessity and the implementation nature of the dispute. The Board emphasized the employer's affirmative duty to investigate and provide benefits upon notice of potential needs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryAC HVAC Commercial InstallerHome ModificationsADA Compliant ApartmentSkilled Nursing FacilityUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewDue ProcessLabor Code
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,839 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