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. 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. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ9267687
Regular
Apr 02, 2019

NORMA DE JESUS ZARAGOZA vs. FRANCHISE INVESTMENT CORPORATION dba ROUND TABLE PIZZA and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE/FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $500 sanction against applicant's attorney, Peter T. Nguyen, and his law firm. This sanction arose from attaching over 325 pages of exhibits, many not in evidence, to a petition, violating WCAB rules regarding page limits and proper exhibit submission. The attorney's claim of inexperience was rejected, as attorneys are responsible for knowing and adhering to procedural rules, and zealous advocacy does not excuse rule violations. The Board also noted the attorney's failure to adequately cite the trial record in support of his petition.

WCABRemovalSanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561WCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10856Petition for ReconsiderationExhibits
References
Case No. ADJ332528 (AHM 0104042)
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

ERNEST DANIELS vs. PIEDMONT ENGINEERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $250.00 sanction against the State Compensation Insurance Fund and its attorney, Maria Frias Callejas. This sanction was issued due to their failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions and their violation of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure. No timely objection demonstrating good cause was filed. Consequently, they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the sanction to the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsState Compensation Insurance FundMaria Frias CallejasRules of Practice and ProcedureNotice of IntentionGood CauseTimely ResponseJoint and Several LiabilityAttorney for Defendant
References
Case No. ADJ9074637
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

ANA RAMOS vs. TRI-STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES/ DIAMOND STAFFING; LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, in liquidation, administered by CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address. Additionally, the lien claimant violated WCAB rules by including impermissible attachments to their petition. One attachment documented prohibited ex parte communications with the judge. The lien claimant was admonished to follow Appeals Board rules to avoid potential sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationEx Parte CommunicationLien ClaimantWCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10324(c)SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
Case No. ADJ7414538
Regular
Sep 27, 2013

WILLOLA JOINTER vs. LOS ANGELES JOB CORPS CENTER, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Western Imaging Services, seeking reconsideration after its lien was denied by the Workers' Compensation Judge due to insufficient evidence regarding billing practices. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding Western misstated the evidence and the law, and failed to meet its burden of proof on the reasonableness of its charges. Furthermore, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions for apparent violations of rules regarding proper document execution and professional conduct. Western's petition misrepresented defendant's objections and cited outdated law, while failing to present evidence on the crucial issue of billing appropriateness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJBurden of ProofLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesSanctionsBad Faith
References
Case No. ADJ6535347, ADJ6534384
Regular
Nov 02, 2015

CHRISTINE KNAPP vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn findings of $53\%$ permanent disability and disputed the exclusion of vocational expert reports and a claim of $100\%$ disability. The Board found the petition contained numerous factual misrepresentations and violations of WCAB rules and professional conduct by the applicant's attorney. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial due to the petition's legal defects and factual inaccuracies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardOccupational Group NumberIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderMigraine HeadachesPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ3860512 (OAK 0238823)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

, Applicant vs. COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior findings and order. The dismissal was based on the applicant's submission of a petition that grossly exceeded the 25-page limit set by WCAB rules. Additionally, the petition improperly attempted to appeal existing exhibits already in the record. The WCAB warned the applicant of potential sanctions for future non-compliance with filing rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalWCJ ReportPage LimitationRule 10845(a)Rule 10232(a)(10)SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Rule 10561
References
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, New Age Imaging Copy Service

This order imposes a $500.00 sanction against lien claimant New Age Imaging Copy Service for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration without justification. The Board previously provided notice of its intent to sanction and allowed an opportunity to object, which the lien claimant failed to do. The sanction is for violating Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2) regarding frivolous filings. Payment is due within twenty days to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for transmittal to the General Fund.

Frivolous petitionSanctionLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2)Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationNotice of intentionGood causeOpinion and Order Dismissing Petition for ReconsiderationGranting Removal
References
Case No. ADJ593283 (AHM 0117827) ADJ1747148 (AHM 0117828) ADJ196184 (AHM 0117826)
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DEBORAH ARRIOLA-LARA vs. NORDSTROMS; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board denied Nordstrom's Petition for Removal seeking to overturn an order allowing applicant's supplemental deposition at her attorney's office. The Board found the petition lacked merit. However, the Board sua sponte granted removal on the limited issue of sanctions against Nordstrom's counsel. This action stems from counsel's inclusion of numerous extraneous and previously filed documents in their 114-page petition, constituting a violation of procedural rules and potentially a frivolous tactic warranting sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental DepositionDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 2025.250Good CauseWCAB Rule 10842(c)Labor Code Section 5813Bad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,127 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