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. ADJ6994190
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

JUAN GAMBOA vs. HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that he did not prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to demonstrate he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his work-related injury. The employer presented evidence of a business slowdown and layoffs affecting both industrially and non-industrially injured employees. Therefore, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof regarding discriminatory treatment.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderworkers' compensation administrative law judgedisadvantageous treatmentbusiness necessityeconomic slowdowntemporary hirere-hireddisabled workers
References
Case No. SBR 0315782
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

GORDON ADAMS vs. SOUTHLAND DRYWALL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, Inc., whose lien was denied because it allegedly did not use its full corporate name or have a fictitious business name permit. The Appeals Board rescinded the denial and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that Premier was properly licensed as an outpatient facility and that the defendant did not timely raise the fictitious business name statement issue. The Board clarified that a facility fee lien claimant is not required to have a Medical Board fictitious-name permit, but may need to file a fictitious business name statement if operating under a name other than its legal corporate name.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantFictitious Business Name StatementFictitious-Name PermitBusiness & Professions Code Section 17910Business & Professions Code Section 2415(a)Medical Board of CaliforniaOutpatient SettingFacility FeeCompromise and Release
References
Case No. ADJ8258390, ADJ8246247, ADJ9024430
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

HAMIDULLAH SARWARY vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a finding that he failed to prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating him after resolving his workers' compensation claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior order, finding the judge's decision lacked clarity regarding evidence of termination and temporal proximity between settlement and separation. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to develop the record on whether the applicant was terminated due to his settlement and if such termination was necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aRetaliationDiscriminationTerminationCompromise and ReleasePrima facie caseBusiness realitiesTemporal proximityDisadvantageous treatmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. LAO 0878674
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

KARLA BUENO vs. PLAZA DEFENDANT LA RAZA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that barred a lien claim due to the alleged lack of a fictitious business name permit. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant presented a surgical clinic license, the record was unclear about its actual business name and compliance with fictitious name filing requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the lien claimant's true name and establish its compliance with fictitious business name laws.

Fictitious Business Name StatementSurgical Clinic LicenseHealth ServicesBusiness and Professions CodeMedical BoardLien ClaimantOutpatient SettingAdministrative Law JudgeReconsiderationReasonableness of Fees
References
Case No. LAO 0794643
Regular
May 07, 2008

FRANCISCO CHAPA vs. GIBSON OVERSEAS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the initial denial of a lien claim by S&B Surgery Center. The Board found the record insufficient regarding S&B's licensure and proper business naming, remanding the case for further development. This includes proving proper licensure as an "outpatient setting" and addressing the necessity of filing a fictitious business name statement, followed by a determination of the reasonableness of the billed fees.

Lien claimantreconsiderationlicensurefictitious business name statementoutpatient settingsurgical clinicMedical Boardcounty clerkreasonableness of feesburden of proof
References
Case No. ANA 381864
Regular
Feb 25, 2008

TUAN KHANH DO vs. CONEYBEARE PERSONNEL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) entitlement to payment for medical-legal services. The defendant insurer argued that the QME's lien claim was invalid due to the use of a business name without a fictitious business name permit. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the QME rendered services and signed reports under his own name. The Board further noted that the insurer failed to properly object to the billings within the regulatory timeframe and the lien claim form was amended to reflect the QME's individual name.

WCABState Compensation Insurance FundMedical-legal servicesFictitious business name permitQualified Medical ExaminerLien claimCompromise and releaseMedical Board of CaliforniaBusiness and Professions CodeLabor Code
References
Case No. ADJ9351964 ADJ9351965
Regular
Mar 15, 2016

ROGELIO CORNEJO vs. YOUNIQUE CAFÉ, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior en banc decision. The prior decision held that Chapter 20 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code did not apply to a copy service lien claimant acting as an agent or independent contractor for a lawyer. Consequently, proof of registration and bonding under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455 was deemed unnecessary in such circumstances. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYounique CaféZenith Insurance CompanyWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Rogelio CornejoPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancChapter 20Business and Professions Code
References
Case No. LAO 0856142
Regular
Jan 04, 2008

MARCO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ vs. LANCA, INC. dba LANCA EXPRESS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involved an applicant, a delivery driver, who was shot and robbed while exiting a hotel after a delivery run. The applicant argued his injuries were work-related under the "commercial traveler" rule, which extends coverage to employees traveling for business. The defense contended the applicant was engaged in personal activities when injured, even if the location was a high-crime area. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the injury was industrial, as the applicant's work duties brought him to the location where the incident occurred, and personal activities during travel are generally covered if reasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCommercial Traveler RuleCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationReasonable InferencesPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryBusiness TripLodging and Meals
References
Case No. ADJ8242446
Regular
May 14, 2013

DOMINGO LOYA vs. ALEJANDRO BURGOS, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY

This case concerns Domingo Loya's claim for workers' compensation after a fall while repairing a roof. The applicant contended he was an employee hired by the homeowner, Alejandro Burgos, whose wife operated a daycare on the property. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, finding Loya excluded from coverage under Labor Code Section 3352(h). This exclusion applies because Loya worked fewer than 52 hours for the homeowner within the 90 days preceding his injury, and his work was deemed that of a handyman, not in the course of the homeowner's business.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 3352(h)HandymanDaycare FacilityStewart caseCourse of TradeBusiness PremisesBusiness Property
References
Case No. ADJ3545880 (LBO 0296539)
Regular
Feb 23, 2010

PEGGY PAPPIN vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

In Pappin v. United Airlines, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming a finding of illegal discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The employer argued the applicant's termination was for legitimate business reasons, not due to her psyche injury. However, the Board found evidence of disparate treatment where another employee with similar ticketing infractions, who had not filed a workers' compensation claim, was not terminated. The Board concluded that the employer's inconsistent rule enforcement and awareness of the applicant's injury claim supported the finding that she was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to her industrial injury.

Labor Code section 132apsyche injurytemporary total disabilityRoldaStockmanprima facie casediscriminatory personnel actiondisparate treatmentindustrial injurytermination
References
Showing 1-10 of 500 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