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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ2073428 (VNO 0465400) ADJ1610465 (VNO 0540972) ADJ3247765 (VNO 00384869)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

JAY ZAVERI vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; Legally Uninsured

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, arguing for a 100% permanent disability rating and challenging the permanent disability start date used for attorney fee commutation. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence to establish total permanent disability, as the applicant was currently employed and medical opinions did not definitively support such a rating. The Board also ruled that the applicant waived arguments regarding the rating of specific injuries by failing to properly object, and that even if considered, separate ratings for back, knee, and plantar fasciitis conditions would not result in a higher award due to fibromyalgia being the primary cause and rating higher. Finally, the Board clarified that the July 2, 2000 date was only relevant to the attorney fee commutation calculation and not to the determination of permanent disability indemnity payments.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuryBack InjuryHip InjuryBilateral Knee InjuryBilateral Foot InjuryBilateral Plantar Fasciitis
References
Case No. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ6784736
Regular
May 24, 2010

CYNTHIA ARMANDO vs. ENDODONTIC ASSOCIATES CORP., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling production of claims file documents. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the original order, and issued a new order. The new order requires the defendant to produce non-privileged portions of the claims file and witness statements, and to describe any privileged documents separately. The Board also clarified that statutory privilege provisions, including attorney work product, are applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationClaims Investigation FileAttorney Workproduct PrivilegeWitness StatementsInterim OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAbsolute Work ProductQualified Work Product
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. ADJ16246113
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

ELMER HERNANDEZ vs. TACO BELL, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal concerning an order compelling discovery of market rate guidelines and the identity of a knowledgeable person. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, deeming it untimely and from a non-final order, and denied the removal petition. The Board found the defendant failed to establish attorney work-product privilege, as no attorney asserted the privilege and no evidence demonstrated the guidelines were attorney work-product. Finally, the defendant waived its argument regarding the knowledgeable person by failing to adequately brief the issue.

Cost petitionerAttorney work productMarket rate guidelinesPerson most knowledgeablePetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalFindings and OrderWCJSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ4363797
Regular
Jun 27, 2012

JOHN TRAN vs. TUNG KEE NOODLE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION in liquidation

This case concerns whether the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) can depose Lee Caballero, a non-attorney representative for lien claimant Dan Ho, D.C., regarding his relationship with Dr. Ho. CIGA seeks to determine if the lien was assigned to Caballero, which would exclude it from CIGA's coverage. The Board rescinded the prior order denying the deposition and allowed CIGA to depose Caballero about his agreement with Dr. Ho, provided a written agreement is not produced. However, the deposition is limited to questions concerning the assignment of the lien, excluding confidential communications about the claim's merits.

CIGAlien claimantnon-attorney lay representativedepositionassignmentInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(B)confidentiality privilegeattorney-client privilegeattorney work product privilegecase of first impression
References
Case No. ADJ7247116 ADJ7241415 ADJ7407598 ADJ9052220 ADJ9432209
Regular
Feb 12, 2015

DOROTHY TRISTAN vs. CITY OF FRESNO, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for removal regarding a discovery order. The employer argued that releasing documents related to a prior DFEH/EEOC discrimination claim and allowing a continued deposition would cause irreparable harm due to privilege concerns. The Board found the employer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, emphasizing that privilege objections can still be raised for specific documents. The Board also noted the prolonged discovery dispute and encouraged expeditious resolution of the underlying workers' compensation claims.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionDocument ProductionPrivileged RecordsDFEHEEOCLabor Code Section 132aDiscovery DisputeMandatory Settlement Conference
References
Case No. ADJ10065068
Regular
May 02, 2018

JOHN LAMBERT vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney. Following the denial of the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for this specific purpose. The applicant's attorney submitted a petition requesting \$9,765.00 for 27.9 hours of work at \$350 per hour in opposing the writ. Without objection from the defendant and after considering the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Appeals Board awarded the full \$9,765.00 in appellate attorney's fees.

Labor Code § 5801additional attorney's feessupplemental awardPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appealappellate attorney's feestime loghourly ratecase-by-case basismerits of appellate work
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,946 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