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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. SDO 0249452
Regular
May 12, 2008

GAIL GODFREY vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE ENTERPRISE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANY

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the County of San Diego was the applicant's special employer, making them jointly and severally liable for her injury. This determination was made despite a contract stating the applicant was not a County employee, as the Board found sufficient evidence of San Diego's control over her work. Consequently, the County is considered "other insurance available" to the applicant, meaning CIGA is not liable for her benefits.

CIGAcovered claimspecial employergeneral employerlabor brokerageindustrial injuryinsolvent insurerother insurancejoint and several liabilitycontractual exclusion
References
Case No. ADJ10560449
Regular
Sep 28, 2018

CYNTHIA AVALOS vs. YOUNGS CARGO, INC., SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Cynthia Avalos, sustained injuries while driving for Young's Cargo, Inc. (YCI). Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), argued it was not the applicant's employer, citing a co-employment agreement with YCI and the timing of receiving application paperwork. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied SPLI's petition for reconsideration and dismissed its petition for removal. The Board affirmed the finding of joint and several liability for both SPLI and YCI, based on evidence of a dual employment relationship and SPLI's retroactive ratification of the applicant's employment status by issuing a paycheck.

Dual employmentSpecial employmentJoint and several liabilityCo-employment agreementRetroactive ratificationThreshold issueFindings of Fact and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. SAC 0300070
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

HAROLD RANDALL vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, C.I.G.A., INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, MCKESSON CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award because the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding the applicant was not a special employee of McKesson Corporation. The Board found that McKesson exercised sufficient control and supervision over the applicant, who was provided by a temporary staffing agency, to establish a special employment relationship. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decision on all outstanding issues.

Special employmentDual employmentTemporary employment agencyControl and directionBorrowing employerGeneral employerIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityQualified medical evaluatorReconsideration
References
Case No. VNO 0470470
Regular
May 12, 2008

GERARDO RAMIREZ vs. WILLIAM ALONSO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning applicant Gerardo Ramirez's employment status at the time of his injury. The Board rescinded the previous findings, finding the evidence insufficient to support dual employment and needing clarification on whether applicant was a casual employee, which might affect his eligibility for benefits. The case was returned to the trial level for additional evidence gathering, including a review of the defendant's insurance policy for the property where the injury occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Fundindustrial injuryright major extremitydefendant's contentiondual employmentthreshold issueemployment relationshippresumption of employmentjoint venture
References
Case No. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
Case No. ADJ8406544
Regular
May 26, 2017

TONY BUTLER vs. QUALITY PERSONNEL, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BAXTER HEALTHCARE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Baxter Healthcare's petition for reconsideration of a finding that applicant Tony Butler was a special employee of Baxter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the finding of special employment based on Baxter's significant control over Butler's work, including training, the ability to replace him, and negotiation of his pay rate. Baxter and its carrier, Old Republic, were ordered to administer the claim, with the Board finding that CIGA was not liable due to the existence of other insurance.

Special employeeBorrowing employerControlManner and meansQuality PersonnelBaxter HealthcareOld Republic Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
Case No. ADJ9199320
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

VICENTE CEPEDA vs. JESUS RAMIREZ DBA JR COATINGS COMPANY; THE HARTFORD; and CLASSIC HOME IMPROVEMENT; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether Vicente Cepeda was an employee of JR Coatings (general employer) or Classic Home Improvement (CHI) (special employer) when he sustained an injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that JR Coatings was the general employer, despite JR Coatings' argument that it lacked control over Cepeda's work. The Board determined Cepeda, lacking a contractor's license, was an employee, and JR Coatings' involvement in facilitating his work under its license made it liable as the general employer. The dissenting opinion argued that CHI was the true employer and JR Coatings was merely a pass-through to circumvent licensing requirements, with no actual employment relationship.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentContractor's licenseRight of controlIndependent contractorLabor Code section 2750.5Insurance Code section 11663Subcontractor agreementEstoppel
References
Case No. ADJ13319691
Regular
Apr 08, 2025

Chester Taylor vs. State of California, Department of Corrections Inmate Claims, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Applicant Chester Taylor sought commutation of benefits from December 13, 2024, to his life expectancy, claiming financial hardship and borrowing from his daughter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his petition for reconsideration, affirming the presiding workers' compensation administrative law judge's (PWCJ) finding that the applicant failed to establish the necessity of commutation for his protection or best interest, as required by Labor Code section 5100(a). The WCAB also highlighted the lack of clarity regarding how commutation would not cause undue expense or hardship to the applicant, as per Labor Code section 5100(b). The decision underscored that the burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate the need for commutation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCommutation of BenefitsLabor Code Section 5100Discretion of WCABBurden of ProofStipulated Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityInmate ClaimsState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
Showing 1-9 of 9 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