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. ADJ3642899 (STK 0197722) ADJ1012548 (STK 0197723)
Regular
Jun 05, 2009

YOLANDA GIL vs. CERES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order to take the matter off calendar was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's alternative Petition for Removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The defendant had argued the judge erred by not closing discovery at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. The Board adopted the judge's report, concluding that removal was an extraordinary remedy unwarranted here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code section 5502Labor Code section 5900Final OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable Harm
References
5
Case No. ADJ2475098
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

YOLANDA SPANDRI vs. LAUSD, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Yolanda Spandri. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed her petition. The dismissal is based on both untimeliness and, alternatively, would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is formally dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and Recommendationuntimely petitiondismissal ordermerits denialadministrative law judgeLAUSDSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ2475098
References
0
Case No. ADJ 3006646 (GOL 0101478) ADJ 4273750 (GOL 0101479)
Regular
Dec 23, 2010

YOLANDA ROMO RODRIGUEZ vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Applicant Yolanda Romo-Rodriguez sought penalties under Labor Code § 132a, alleging the County of Santa Barbara discriminated against her by denying a 9/80 work schedule after her industrial injury. The WCJ denied the petition, finding no evidence applicant was singled out due to her injury, as others in her training class also worked 40-hour weeks. The employer demonstrated a business necessity for the 40-hour schedule due to call center performance demands. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings.

Labor Code section 132aDiscrimination9/80 work scheduleBusiness necessityReconsiderationPenaltiesFinding of FactIndustrial injuryLauher standardEligibility worker
References
2
Case No. ADJ9746778
Regular
Apr 18, 2017

Alicia Gil vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration regarding Alicia Gil's industrial injury claim. The Board affirmed the finding of temporary total disability but increased the weekly temporary disability indemnity rate. This adjustment was based on applicant's demonstrated earning capacity through post-injury wage increases received while on modified duty, rather than solely her earnings at the date of injury. The Board also ordered clerical amendments to the Findings and Award to correctly identify disputed body parts and parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLoma Linda University Medical CenterAlicia GilReconsiderationFindings and AwardClinical Nurse-RNTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and Stationary StatusAverage Weekly EarningsEarning Capacity
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2002

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership

Gil Sharp, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries on October 31, 1996, when an elevator car he was working on at 40 Wall Street fell 30 feet after he mistakenly cut supporting cables. He sued the premises owner, 40 Wall Street Development Associates, alleging violations of various Labor Law sections and OSHA regulations. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, while Sharp cross-moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, and to amend his bill of particulars. The court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241-a, 241 (6), and OSHA regulations. However, Sharp was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), with the court finding the defendant liable for failing to provide adequate safety devices.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndustrial CodeWorkplace safetyGravity-related hazardConstruction site accidentFall from heightOwner liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ8817767
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

YOLANDA JONES vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for removal filed by the applicant, Yolanda Jones, against the Department of Motor Vehicles and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The applicant's attorney, Ratto Law Firm, subsequently withdrew the petition for removal. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the withdrawn petition.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8817767Department of Motor VehiclesState Compensation Insurance FundMarguerite SweeneyRatto Law Firm
References
0
Case No. ADJ2364712 (OXN 0139590) ADJ3543592 (OXN 0138767)
Regular
Feb 02, 2012

YOLANDA SANDOVAL vs. MURPHY CHIROPRACTIC, SPORTS AND WELLNESS PHYSICAL THERAPY, STATE FARM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Yolanda Sandoval's Petition for Reconsideration. This decision was based on the judge's report, which the Board adopted and incorporated by reference. The Board found no grounds to overturn the original decision. Therefore, the applicant's request for reconsideration was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationadministrative law judgereconsideration deniedMurphy ChiropracticSports and Wellness Physical TherapyState FarmADJ2364712OXN 0139590ADJ3543592
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06746
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Matter of Tyson v. Town of Ramapo

Yolanda D. Tyson, a police officer for the Town of Ramapo, was terminated from her employment after being on leave for over two years due to a work-related injury, during which she continuously received Workers' Compensation benefits. Her termination was effected pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71 and a Memorandum of Agreement between the Town and the Ramapo Police Benevolent Association. Tyson filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the termination as arbitrary and capricious and beyond the respondents' authority. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a valid cause of action and that the material facts claimed by her were not sufficiently established.

CPLR Article 78Termination of EmploymentCivil Service Law § 71Workers' Compensation BenefitsPolice OfficerArbitrary and CapriciousMotion to DismissAppellate DivisionOccupational InjuryMemorandum of Agreement
References
7
Case No. ADJ7217859, ADJ7544106
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

YOLANDA MARTINEZ vs. MASS PRECISION, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, SCI @ BALANCE STAFFING SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves applicant Yolanda Martinez claiming industrial injuries (lumbar spine, right shoulder, psyche) from her employment at Mass Precision. Defendant Zurich North America, insurer for SCI @ Balance Staffing Service, contested liability for the psyche injury, arguing applicant's employment by SCI was less than the six-month statutory minimum. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of joint and several liability, holding that prior employment at the same worksite with dual employers counts towards the six-month requirement for psyche injury claims. This decision was based on the principle that the six-month rule aims to prevent claims from routine stress in new employment, a purpose not served when an employee has a longer-term relationship with the worksite.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma InjuryApportionmentPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment RequirementDual EmploymentGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
3
Case No. ADJ3413739
Regular
Oct 24, 2013

YOLANDA OSUNA vs. MARRIOTT HOTEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimants and their representatives, Innovative Medical Management (IMM) and Louis Heard, as untimely. The Board also removed the case to itself and gave notice of its intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against IMM and Heard. This action stems from IMM and Heard filing a frivolous, untimely petition containing misrepresentations about the timing of lien withdrawals, following the original imposition of sanctions by the WCJ for their failure to appear at a scheduled lien trial. The Board noted IMM and Heard's extensive history of similar sanctionable conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalSanctionsHearing RepresentativesInnovative Medical ManagementLouis HeardLien ClaimantsLabor Code Section 5813Frivolous Petition
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 55 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