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. ADJ8925091, ADJ6820644
Regular
Aug 29, 2017

ALFRED MCKNIGHT vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the petition lacked specific facts demonstrating bias, an unqualified opinion on the merits, or enmity, as required by statute. Furthermore, the Board denied the petition for a change of venue due to the applicant failing to provide sufficient reasons for the request. The WCJ's report, detailing these deficiencies, was adopted and incorporated into the Board's decision.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641biasprejudiceunqualified opinionfactual basisevidentiary basis
References
7
Case No. ADJ3447287 (SBR 0263874) ADJ3565604 (ANA 0306676) ADJ3955433 (ANA 0306675)
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

PATSY HENDRY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, PERMISSIBLY SELF INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition to disqualify a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCAB found that the alleged expressions of opinion by the WCJ did not demonstrate bias or an unqualified opinion as to the merits of the case, but rather reflected rulings based on evidence and law. The board also clarified that erroneous rulings do not constitute grounds for disqualification. Furthermore, the WCAB concluded that the petition, while not subject to strict timeliness rules due to the timing of the alleged events, was still ultimately denied on its merits.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJCode of Civil Procedure section 641formed or expressed an unqualified opinionexistence of a state of mindenmity against or bias towardTaylor v. Industrial Acc. Com.Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.Kreling v. Superior CourtMcEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co.
References
7
Case No. ADJ10250093
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

DENIS PADILLA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant, Denis Padilla, versus their employer, Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Padilla's Petition for Reconsideration in this matter. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion on DecisionPermit Self-InsuredADJ10250093Pomona District OfficeDenying PetitionWCJ ReportAdopted Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ford v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a public relations director, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 1994 due to work-related posttraumatic stress disorder, but later withdrew the claim in March 1997 due to a parallel federal civil rights action, leading to its closure without a decision on merits. In March 2003, claimant sought to reopen the case, which the Workers' Compensation Board denied in February 2004, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 123 as a bar. The Board subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review in July 2004, prompting the claimant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no new evidence was presented for reconsideration and that the Board had properly determined the claim was truly closed and time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as over seven years had lapsed since the accident. Consequently, the appellate decision concluded that the Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealReconsideration DenialTime-Barred ClaimPosttraumatic Stress DisorderFederal Civil Rights ActionJurisdictionReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
5
Case No. ADJ8984848, ADJ8981790, ADJ8982096
Regular
Sep 23, 2016

Alma Vasquez vs. Paper Source Converting and Manufacturing, Inc., Paper Source Converting, Employers Management Services, Granite State Insurance, Amtrust

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by applicant Alma Vasquez. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal. The applicant's contentions regarding improper trial setting and inclusion of indispensable parties were found to be without merit. Therefore, the petition was denied as removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted.

RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessPQMEToxic Exposure
References
2
Case No. ADJ8288773
Regular
May 13, 2013

ANA ESCOBAR vs. SEW GOOD JEANS, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Radstar, Dr. Abel Quesada, and Lighthouse Medical Management. Although the WCAB found the petitions of Dr. Quesada and Lighthouse Medical Management timely despite the WCJ's initial belief, they were still denied on the merits. The WCAB clarified that Orders Dismissing Lien Claims for failure to pay activation fees are considered final orders. Therefore, all three petitions for reconsideration were ultimately denied by the WCAB.

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIALLIEN CLAIMANTSTIMELINESSWCAB RULE 10500(b)FINAL ORDERSSERVICEDATED AND FILEDDISPUTED ISSUEADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
References
0
Case No. ADJ6834877
Regular
Dec 22, 2014

EUSTELIO TELLEZ vs. BORDIERS NURSERY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by Liening Edge, Inc. on behalf of lien claimant Metrics Medical Group. The petition was denied on the merits due to Liening Edge and its "Director of Operations" lacking standing as they were not the official representative of record for Metrics Medical Group. Although the verification technically complied with Labor Code section 5902, the Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which detailed the lien claimant's failure to appear at scheduled hearings and their subsequent improper petition. Therefore, reconsideration was denied and the original decision imposing costs and sanctions was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStandingRepresentative of RecordMetrics Medical GroupLiening EdgeMedical Lien ManagementLabor Code Section 5902Findings and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ9122325
Regular
Aug 13, 2016

GILBERT MIRANDA vs. FINISHING TOUCH MOLDING, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied San Diego Imaging's Petition for Reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien. Although the petition was filed electronically, it was improperly designated and thus not brought to the attention of the Board or the WCJ within 60 days. The Board found the petition was not denied by operation of law, but upon review, adopted the WCJ's recommendation to deny the petition on its merits. Therefore, the lien remains dismissed with prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantImproper DesignationDenied by Operation of LawLabor Code Section 5909Report and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ7065210
Regular
Aug 29, 2012

YURIDIA CORDERO vs. UNITED STAFFING, DYNAMIC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding it frivolous and a waste of resources. The claimant's liens were disallowed on the merits because the services were not rendered by the designated primary treating physician or supported by proper evidence. The Board admonished the lien claimant for unprofessional conduct, noting it was sanctionable but refraining from issuing sanctions due to a pending matter for similar behavior. The petition was denied based on the reasons stated in the Workers' Compensation Judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Report and RecommendationApplication for Adjudication of ClaimPrimary treating physicianPanel QMEFindings and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ6804554
Regular
Jul 08, 2014

MARIE DE LEON vs. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal/disqualification. The petition was denied because it was filed after testimony had already been taken at trial, violating WCAB Rule 10452. Even if considered on its merits, the petition would have been denied as the WCJ's past, infrequent treatment by the applicant's doctor did not demonstrate bias. The WCJ disclosed the prior contact and asserted impartiality, which the Board found sufficient.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJReport and RecommendationJudicial EconomyRule 10452Swearing of First WitnessPetition for ReconsiderationCode of Civil Procedure Section 641Enmity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 17,953 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