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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ6929350, ADJ7133107, ADJ8881791
Regular
Aug 16, 2019

TIMOTHY RODRIGUEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, finding legal error in requiring proof of conspiracy for workers' compensation claims. The WCJ incorrectly applied the burden of proof and failed to adequately consider medical opinions regarding applicant's claims of physical and psychiatric injuries. The case is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision, requiring the WCJ to analyze each claimed injury and body part separately under the correct burden of proof and to further develop the medical record as necessary.

AOE-COEAgreed Medical Evaluatorhostile work environmentconspiracy theoryburden of proofpreponderance of the evidencespecific injurycumulative traumapsychiatric injurygood faith personnel action
References
Case No. ADJ7281695
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

MARIA COSME HERNANDEZ vs. CARDENAS MARKET, INC., PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE GROUP, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not a credible witness, giving great weight to the WCJ's observation of her demeanor. The Board also found no substantial evidence to overturn the credibility determination and noted the applicant's failure to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, any objection to the admissibility of defendant's Exhibit A was deemed waived due to the lack of objection at trial.

Petition for ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationDemeanor on the StandSubstantiality of EvidenceBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceIndustrial InjuryAdmissibility of EvidenceWaived ObjectionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ12744384
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

CHEYANNE MORENO vs. CALSELECT INSURANCE SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 9, 2021. The F&O found that the applicant, Cheyanne Moreno, did not sustain a psychiatric injury due to a sudden and extraordinary event, thereby not qualifying for an exception to the six-month employment requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The WCAB determined that the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) erroneously misassigned the burden of proof regarding the six-month employment period to the applicant. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the F&O and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to properly develop the record on whether the defendant can establish that the applicant's employment period was less than six months.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment requirementburden of proofrescinded Findings and Orderreturn to trial levelAOE/COEpreponderance of the evidencecumulative injury
References
Case No. ADJ12252481 ADJ12252972
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

ROXANNE MAHROOM vs. MAHROOM FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Roxanne Mahroom seeking temporary disability (TD) indemnity for a period preceding the WCJ's awarded benefits. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate entitlement to TD for the disputed period, as she provided no medical evidence or testimony supporting her inability to work during that time. The WCJ's finding of TD from January 25, 2019, and continuing, was supported by substantial evidence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Temporary Total Disability (TTD)Temporary Disability IndemnitySubstantial EvidenceBurden of ProofMedical EvidenceApplicant's Testimony
References
Case No. ADJ7970442
Regular
Jul 17, 2013

JOSE AMAYA vs. RIGO'S CUSTOM FURNITURE, INC., PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Jose Amaya's claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging injury to his hernia, back, and extremities while employed as a carpenter. The defendant, Rigo's Custom Furniture, Inc., sought reconsideration of the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision, primarily arguing the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof and that the claim was barred by the post-termination defense. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report. The WCAB found that even if the applicant was terminated on August 5, 2011, the post-termination defense would not apply because the concurrence of disability and knowledge occurred after that date, falling within a statutory exception.

Post-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D)Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantWCJcumulative injuryherniaupper extremities
References
Case No. ADJ11399627
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

ISAI CHILEL vs. KISHO, INC. dba SUSHI CALIFORNIA, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to overturn a finding that the applicant sustained a work-related injury and that it was not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish termination or layoff under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Evidence regarding the applicant's departure from employment was ambiguous, not clearly establishing a termination rather than a voluntary resignation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensepetition for reconsiderationfindings and orderapplicantdefendantinjuryleft handsubstantial medical evidence
References
Case No. STK 201844
Regular
Feb 08, 2008

GURMIT JHUTTI vs. FOSTER FARMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the decision finding the applicant did not sustain the alleged injury. The denial was based on the applicant's nearly five-year delay in filing the claim and the fact that the claim was filed on the same day as a reconsideration petition for a prior, related injury case, raising suspicion of a "back-up" strategy. Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, with unpersuasive testimony and a lack of corroborating evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedApplicantDefendantFoster FarmsGurmit JhuttiSTK 201844Delay in Filing ClaimAOE/COEUnpersuasive Medical Report
References
Case No. ADJ3855576 (STK 0210109)
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

CARL JOHNSON vs. STOCKTON OPEN AIR MALL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision regarding applicant Carl Johnson's claim against Stockton Open Air Mall. The applicant alleged wrongful termination in violation of Labor Code §132a, but the WCJ found the employer terminated him for legitimate, unrelated reasons, including attendance issues and conflicts. The WCJ's credibility findings were given great weight, and the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof that the termination was due to his work injury. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied, as the applicant had already had his opportunity to present evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code §132aPretrial Conference StatementCredibility of witnessesTermination of employmentCause for terminationWork injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 11,502 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