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. ADJ11110973
Regular
May 23, 2025

Jorge Aragon vs. El Super, Safety National Casualty Corporation, Tristar Risk Management

The applicant, Jorge Aragon, sought reconsideration of a decision denying him a second payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP). The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found him ineligible based on Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second RTWSP payment if the subsequent injury occurs before receiving the previous supplement. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant's remedy to challenge the validity of Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board, as the rule is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The Board also clarified its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite RTWSP's contention.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48invalid regulationarbitrary and capriciousArticle XIV section 4Administrative Procedures Act
References
3
Case No. ADJ7194315
Regular
Nov 15, 2013

ROSALINDA RODRIGUEZ vs. MERCURY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, TRAVELERS PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order that removed the case from calendar due to lack of jurisdiction. The WCJ erred in finding he could not rule on the defendant's petition to strike the applicant's request for additional QME panels. The Board determined that Labor Code section 133 and WCAB Rule 10348 grant the WCJ jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness and necessity of such requests. The case is returned to the WCJ to decide whether additional QME panels are warranted.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel RequestJurisdictionAdministrative Director RuleGood CauseMedical DirectorOff CalendarOrder RescindedReturn to Trial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ10455142
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

RUBEN CELEDON vs. ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ALLOYS, LLC, ENSTAR NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). The defendant alleged bias due to a purported "preexisting relationship" with applicant's attorney and the WCJ's rulings. However, the defendant provided no specific facts to support the relationship claim, and the WCJ denied it. Erroneous rulings, even if numerous, do not automatically establish judicial bias, and the WCJ had previously corrected an order at the defendant's request. The Board found no evidence of bias and denied the petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10452WCJ biaspreexisting relationshiperroneous rulingsaffidavitCode of Civil Procedure Section 641declaration under penalty of perjurysubjective perception of biasWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. ADJ7981413; ADJ2876358
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORI WILLIAMS vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant Lori Williams filed a petition to disqualify WCJ Elizabeth Dehn, alleging bias due to inexperience, ignored medical treatment requests, and lack of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition and the WCJ's report. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition, citing that the petition lacked detailed facts under penalty of perjury as required by WCAB Rule 10960 and failed to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and (g). The WCJ stated that no rulings were made on medical treatment or penalties during the status conference, and denied any bias.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ DisqualificationLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641BiasEnmityUnqualified OpinionAffidavitsDeclaration Under Penalty of PerjuryVerified Allegations
References
8
Case No. ADJ3464275 (VNO 0560064)
Regular
Jun 07, 2018

GILBERTO RODRIGUEZ vs. NOOTER CONSTRUCTION VALERO O.C.I.P.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Gilberto Rodriguez's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). Rodriguez alleged bias based on the WCJ's instruction to number his trial exhibits according to WCAB rules. The WCAB found no factual grounds for disqualification, stating that a WCJ's adherence to procedural rules does not constitute bias. Furthermore, the petition was deemed untimely, unverified, and lacking the required supporting affidavit.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasRule 10629Labor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Petition untimelylack of affidavitpreponderance of evidenceindustrial injury
References
9
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. ADJ7445107
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

JILLIAN DIFUSCO vs. HANDS ON SPA, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Appeals Board, en banc, granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding disclosure requirements for defendants. The WCJ had ruled that the defendant only needed to disclose the name of its insurance carrier as per WCAB Rule 10390. The Board determined that its prior en banc decisions, Coldiron I and II, are binding precedent and require defendants to disclose all entities liable for payment and any insurance policy provisions affecting liability. Consequently, the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order were rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this comprehensive disclosure mandate.

En Banc DecisionWCAB Rule 10390Coldiron IColdiron IIDiscovery RequestInsurance Carrier DisclosureSelf-Insured RetentionLarge DeductibleEntity Liable for CompensationThird-Party Administrator
References
25
Case No. ADJ14660179
Regular
Feb 27, 2025

LAURIE FIELDS vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SEDGWICK

Applicant Laurie Fields sought to disqualify a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging bias, after the WCJ initially found her injury non-industrial, a decision later rescinded on reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition, a supplemental petition, and the WCJ's report. The Board dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding it was untimely filed according to WCAB Rule 10960, as the alleged conduct occurred months before the petition was filed on December 19, 2024. The Board reiterated that expressions of opinion based on evidence and erroneous rulings are not grounds for disqualification if subject to review.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasTimelinessLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960QME ReportsReconsiderationIndependent Medical ExaminerOpinion and Order
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 12,105 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