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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ7624426; ADJ8657421
Regular
Jun 18, 2013

NATHALIE AMEZQUITA vs. SCOTT ZIEHL an Individual, Co-Partner dba JEWELRY, Liquidation USA

The applicant petitioned for disqualification of WCJ Richard Shapiro, alleging enmity and prejudgment. The applicant's counsel stated the WCJ declared the applicant would "take nothing" and was "a liar" before trial. The WCJ did not deny these statements, suggesting they were to facilitate settlement and noting concerns about applicant's attorney's tactics. The Appeals Board granted the disqualification petition, finding the WCJ's statements demonstrated bias or the appearance of bias, and returned the case for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgeenmityformed opinionprejudicedtake nothingliarinformal resolutionappearance of biasreassignment
References
Case No. ADJ11113127
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a previous decision. The Board's amended order dictates that the applicant will receive nothing from his claim. This decision affirms the original findings of fact, which determined the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his right leg and foot as cumulative trauma. The Board found that while the judge's dismissal was in error, the correct disposition is for the applicant to take nothing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderApplicant take nothingIndustrial injuryCumulative traumaRight legRight footBiasPrejudice
References
Case No. ADJ9122601 ADJ9122724
Regular
Mar 08, 2017

WENDY SHALVOY vs. WARNER BROTHERS HOME ENTERTAINMNET, INC.

The applicant claimed her employer violated Labor Code section 132a by withholding temporary disability benefits, which she believed led to differential treatment in a layoff. The WCJ initially issued a "take nothing" order on her entire application. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, finding the WCJ inadvertently applied the "take nothing" order to the wrong part of the applicant's claim. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant failed to prove a violation of section 132a, amending the order to specify she takes nothing regarding her petition for enhanced benefits under that section.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeTemporary Total DisabilitySeverance PackageDifferential TreatmentClerical ErrorPetition for Enhanced Benefits
References
Case No. ADJ11125540, ADJ11127934, ADJ11125539
Regular
Feb 11, 2020

ALONDRA SUASTEQUI vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant did not sustain claimed injuries, upholding the administrative law judge's decision that the applicant take nothing. Crucially, the applicant failed to provide evidence that a claim form was properly filed with the employer, thus not triggering the 90-day presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402. The Board also found any error in admitting denial letters was harmless, as they were not necessary to the conclusion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderspecific trauma injurycumulative trauma injuryWCJ credibility determinationLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilitydenial letterspre-trial conference statement
References
Case No. ADJ721289 (POM 0278079) ADJ820025 (LBO 0312141) ADJ1988208 (POM 0278080) ADJ6759922
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

GEORGE VELASQUEZ vs. RALPHS, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Court of Appeal ruled that Ralphs' initial appeal of vocational rehabilitation benefits was timely despite lacking a Declaration of Readiness. However, the applicant's vocational rehabilitation award was not final before Labor Code section 139.5 was repealed on January 1, 2009. Consequently, the applicant's right to these benefits expired, and the Appeals Board lost jurisdiction. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and ordered that the applicant take nothing for vocational rehabilitation benefits.

RemittiturRehabilitation UnitDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)vocational rehabilitation benefitsLabor Code section 139.5finality of awardjurisdictionappeal timelinessannulmentreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8276740
Regular
Sep 19, 2012

Kim Jaszewski vs. The Regents of the University of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a take-nothing award, finding the applicant's claim untimely. The applicant argued that short-term disability payments tolled the one-year statute of limitations, but failed to provide evidence of such payments. Furthermore, the employer's denial of the claim on March 23, 2011, provided a clear date from which the one-year filing period began to run. The Board also rejected the applicant's attorney's attempt to seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, as it does not grant relief from jurisdictional deadlines like statutes of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplication for Adjudication of Claimstatute of limitationstollingshort-term disability benefitsdenial of claimLabor Code section 5405Code of Civil Procedure section 473jurisdictional deadlinecumulative trauma injury
References
Case No. ADJ7485185, ADJ9885267
Regular
Sep 18, 2017

LAURA ORTIZ vs. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, MID CENTURY INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies a petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's timely invocation of jurisdiction to seek additional benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's filings of an Application for Adjudication of Claim and an Amended Application, along with documented medical evidence of worsening condition, satisfied the requirements for reopening and seeking further compensation. These actions put the defendants on notice of the applicant's intent to pursue increased benefits, even without a formal petition to reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5410Application for Adjudication of ClaimRiel v. State of CaliforniaBeaida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.stipulated awardpro perfuture medical treatmentincreased symptomsworsening condition
References
Case No. ADJ7352906
Regular
Jul 10, 2012

ANA PEREZ vs. PALOMINO JANITORIAL SERVICES, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST COMP INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a "take nothing" finding, upholding the WCJ's decision that applicant Ana Perez failed to prove an industrial injury. The WCJ found applicant's testimony not credible due to inconsistent reporting of the injury date, mechanism, and prior medical history. The medical evidence, including a PQME report, concluded no reasonable evidence of an industrial injury existed, citing inconsistent history and denial of trauma in contemporaneous medical records. Therefore, applicant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an industrial injury.

ReconsiderationWCABWCJcredibility determinationamended claimmechanism of injuryinconsistent historyGarden Grove Hospitaldenies traumafibromyalgia
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,777 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