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. ADJ4617702 (GOL 0098783) ADJ1170523 (GOL 0100196)
Regular
Mar 24, 2015

EVE JOHNSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCJ abused his discretion by sua sponte initiating sanctions against the Defendant and ordering the appearance of their claims adjuster, instead of proceeding to trial on the applicant's representation status. Furthermore, the WCJ's expressed opinions and actions created an appearance of bias, necessitating his disqualification. The case is returned to the trial level for a new hearing on the originally scheduled issues.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeSanctionsMedical-Legal EvaluationLabor CodeRepresented ApplicantUnrepresented ApplicantQME
References
Case No. ADJ9211017
Regular
Mar 28, 2017

JOSE MENDOZA vs. KINGSLEY COMPANIES; SAMSUNG FIRE AND MARINE c/o BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the denial of a credit for benefits paid. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge's decision not to grant the credit was within their discretion and not an abuse of discretion, considering the lack of wrongdoing by the applicant. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as skeletal and unsupported by specific references to the record and legal principles, as required by statute and board rules. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the original denial of the credit and dismissed the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionDismissing PetitionLabor Code section 4909CreditDiscretionary AuthorityEquitable PrinciplesSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rules
References
Case No. VNO 545629
Regular
Apr 10, 2008

FREDERICK HALLER vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF RIVERSIDE WORKERS' COMPENSATION OFFICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that established a reasonable attorney fee rate of $225 per hour. The applicant's counsel sought a higher rate, arguing that deposition fees were discretionary and citing internal guidelines from other district offices. The Board found the $225 rate reasonable based on local standards and the WCJ's discretion under Labor Code Section 5710.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ discretiondeposition feesreasonable rateattorney feesabuse of discretionLabor Code Section 5710removalRiverside
References
Case No. ADJ7532937, ADJ7532958, ADJ7532949
Regular
Mar 28, 2018

ANGELO T. DI GENOVA vs. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration in the case of Angelo T. Di Genova v. City of Manhattan Beach. The Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of a credit for payments made by the defendant, as the allowance of such credit is discretionary. The Board found no abuse of discretion in the WCJ's decision, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADMINSUREPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeLabor Code section 4909creditHerrera v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Cordes v. General Dynamics-Astronauticsdiscretionary authorityabuse of discretion
References
Case No. ADJ1779283 (EUR 0031005)
Regular
Apr 17, 2013

WAYNE LOVEL vs. JIM BAKER TRUCKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding an interim order for home health care payments. The Board found the original order was an abuse of discretion because it was issued at a status conference without agreement from the defendant, sufficient evidence, or a proper record. The case is returned for an expedited hearing to determine the applicant's need for medical treatment.

Petition for RemovalInterim Home Health CareAbuse of DiscretionStatus ConferenceExpedited HearingDeclaration of ReadinessUtilization ReviewTreating PhysicianWCAB Rule 10353(a)Stipulations and Issues
References
Case No. ADJ1774552 (OXN 0142840) ADJ3077412 (OXN 0142839)
Regular
Oct 28, 2008

ROGENE GIANGROSSI vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - CHINO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant's petition for removal was denied because the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion by the administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ correctly took the case off calendar when the applicant was absent for trial due to relocating out of state, as permitted by board rules. The board also found that the WCJ's order did not prejudice the applicant's right to future discovery or due process.

Petition for RemovalOff CalendarAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeferred RulingDevelopment of RecordSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ10614689
Regular
May 04, 2018

ALEJANDRO SOSA vs. ADVANCED KNITTING MILLS, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order for an additional orthopedic QME panel, arguing it was an abuse of discretion and caused prejudice. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as the order was not a final decision. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, finding the WCJ erred by ordering the panel based on a QME's recommendation for treatment rather than a disputed medical issue outside the QME's scope. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, returning the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelOrthopedicsChiropracticMedical-legal evaluationAbuse of discretionSubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ7172643; ADJ7172641
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

JUSTIN MILLER vs. PF CHANGS CHINA BISTRO, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant whose workers' compensation claims were dismissed by the WCJ for lack of activity and prosecution. The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing due process violations and non-compliance with dismissal procedures. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the applicant's objections vague and lacking specific reasons for the lack of prosecution despite ample opportunity. A dissenting opinion argued that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion as the applicant had indicated an intention to prosecute the claim.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Order Dismissing Applicationswithout prejudicePetition for Dismissallack of activity and prosecutionNotice of Intent to Dismiss Applicationsobjections overruleddue process rights violatedCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10582
References
Case No. ADJ7181658
Regular
May 13, 2014

Sheriee Borela vs. State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous award. The employer challenged the administrative law judge's (ALJ) method of combining orthopedic and psychiatric permanent disability ratings, arguing it should have used the Combined Values Chart (CVC) instead of simple addition. The Board found the ALJ abused her discretion by not applying the CVC without sufficient medical evidence to justify an alternative method. The case was returned for a new permanent disability rating utilizing the CVC.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability RatingCombined Values ChartOrthopedic ImpairmentsPsychiatric ImpairmentsAdditive FashionSchedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesAgreed Medical ExaminersWhole Person ImpairmentApportionment
References
Case No. ADJ7932962; ADJ7932963; ADJ11544304
Regular
Dec 12, 2019

APRIL TORRES vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The defendant's contention of abuse of discretion by the WCJ for not striking amended applications was rejected, as objections to these amendments remain available for trial. The defendant's claim of having no other remedy was also refuted, with the Board suggesting filing a new Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Trial on all issues.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAshley Furniture IndustriesZurich American InsuranceApril TorresADJ7932962ADJ7932963ADJ11544304WCJMinute Order
References
Showing 1-10 of 273 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