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. 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. 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. ADJ7803842
Regular
May 03, 2016

RAONAL SMITH vs. ST. LOUIS RAMS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding of jurisdiction over the applicant's cumulative industrial injury claim against the St. Louis Rams. The defendant insurer argued California lacked sufficient connection to the injury, citing a previous case. The Board rescinded the ALJ's decision because the record was unclear regarding the evidence considered, particularly a deposition transcript that the ALJ indicated would be reviewed. The case is returned to the trial level for the ALJ to clarify the record, address the deposition transcript and related objections, and rule on the contention that the applicant was hired in California.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSt. Louis RamsGreat Divide Insurance Companycumulative industrial injuryprofessional athleteoffensive linebackersubject matter jurisdictionFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ's Findings of Fact
References
Case No. ADJ7046175
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

, DAVID WILKIE, vs. , CHATEAU HOTEL, and FIRSTCOMP OMAHA for SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY,

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal to the Appeals Board, challenging a WCJ's denial of his petition to quash depositions. The applicant argued improper notice and service of deposition subpoenas, but the WCJ admitted the depositions solely for the purpose of determining timely notice, not for substantive evidence. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition because the applicant had not yet suffered prejudice or irreparable harm, as the depositions had not been used for substantive purposes and he could raise objections later if aggrieved.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionsCode of Civil ProcedureCCP section 2025.270Proper NoticeProof of ServiceIndustrial InjuryLeft Upper ExtremityFindings and OrderWCAB Rule 10843
References
Case No. ADJ8467469
Regular
Apr 17, 2013

IRENE YERA vs. J.C. PENNEY, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal after a WCJ denied their motion to compel a deposition with an employer representative present. The applicant refused to proceed with the deposition citing intimidation by the store manager. The Appeals Board found that the applicant's subjective assertion of intimidation, without specific evidence or a protective order request, was insufficient to exclude the employer's representative. Therefore, the WCJ's denial was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level to allow the deposition to proceed with the store manager present.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalEmployer RepresentativeDepositionProtective OrderIntimidationDue ProcessPrejudiceReport and RecommendationRescinded Decision
References
Case No. ADJ8241877
Regular
May 02, 2014

CONNA NICHOLS, DONNA NICHOLS, DONNA M. NICHOLS vs. EARLY LEARNING INSTITUTE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY CO.

This case concerns a Petition for Removal denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The applicant, Donna Nichols, sought removal of an order compelling her deposition, alleging defects and medical inability to attend. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, which found the petition lacked merit. The WCJ reasoned that the deposition order was not a "walk-through" petition and that the applicant's medical evidence was insufficient to justify further delay.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5313Smales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8241877depositionPetition to Compel Attendance at DepositionDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedwalk-through petition
References
Case No. ADJ9163440
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

INOCENCIO PEDROSA vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleged injury to his right ankle and cervical spine from operating a pallet jack. The defendant disputed the injury AOE/COE, primarily citing surveillance footage and alleged inconsistencies in applicant's testimony. The WCJ found injury AOE/COE based on Dr. Sadler's report, which interpreted the surveillance video as confirming applicant's head hitting a wall, despite the WCJ finding Dr. Sadler's report not substantial due to his failure to consider prior injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further development of the record, finding no substantial evidence to support the injury finding. Additionally, defense counsel was admonished for improperly submitting extraneous documents with the Petition for Reconsideration.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJsubstantial evidencecredible witnesssurveillance footagedeposition testimonyprimary treating physicianpanel qualified medical examinersupplemental report
References
Case No. ADJ2826354
Regular
Oct 30, 2018

CARLOS ARELLANO vs. LYONS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

This case involves an applicant's attorney seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCJ awarded $1,708.33 in deposition fees but denied claims for penalties, additional attorney fees, and costs. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion by the WCJ in determining the reasonableness of the fees or the defendant's actions. The applicant's attorney argued the WCJ erred in the hourly rate for fees and in denying penalties and sanctions. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's findings, emphasizing that Labor Code section 5710 fees are discretionary and the applicant failed to demonstrate unreasonableness or entitlement to further awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5710Attorney FeesDepositionsCompromise and ReleaseCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Superior National Insurance CompanyWCJWCAB Rule 10848
References
Case No. ADJ1443437 LAO 0869505 ADJ2073136 LAO 0859208 ADJ2254995 LAO 0869595 ADJ4428071 LAO 0869514 ADJ4561708 LAO 0859207
Regular
Oct 25, 2018

JACQUELINE STELLY vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ erred in quashing the deposition of Dr. Majcher. The Board determined that the defendant violated a stipulation by seeking a trial date from a different judge without notice. Additionally, the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements for quashing a deposition notice and the applicant's due process rights necessitate the opportunity to depose Dr. Majcher. Therefore, the WCJ's order was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings, including the deposition of Dr. Majcher.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionStipulation ViolationDue ProcessEx ParteMeet and ConferWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportDiscovery
References
Case No. ADJ9837582, ADJ9835957
Regular
Jul 09, 2015

SANTOS GUZMAN vs. MAIN IMPERIAL, LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Applicant's petition for removal of a WCJ's Order to Compel attendance at a deposition. The Board denied removal, finding Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Order to Compel was properly obtained via a walk-through procedure, not an improper ex parte communication. Furthermore, Applicant provided no valid reason for objecting to the continued deposition, especially after prior agreement and the alleged factual inaccuracy of his objection regarding deposition transcripts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder to Compel AttendanceDepositionAdministrative Law JudgeWCJCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryDue ProcessEx Parte
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,569 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