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. ADJ7908593
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

LA WANNA MONTGOMERY vs. REACH LEARNING ACADEMY CENTER, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a discrepancy in the applicant's average weekly wage and temporary disability rate. The defendant challenged the WCJ's calculation, highlighting a significant difference between the applicant's tax return and evidence presented at trial. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further proceedings to resolve this discrepancy, which impacts the applicant's credibility. The WCJ must have the applicant explain the differing earnings figures.

Average Weekly WageTemporary Disability RateEarnings DiscrepancyFederal Tax ReturnW-2s1099sApplicant CredibilityIndustrial InjuryFibula FractureCEO
References
2
Case No. ADJ2969972 (LAO 0870854)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

LEONARD ORTIZ vs. CITY OF WEST COVINA, HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over a workers' compensation settlement agreement (Compromise and Release or C&R). The defendant seeks to reinstate an order approving a C&R after the administrative law judge (WCJ) rescinded it due to a mathematical discrepancy on page six, creating an apparent clerical error. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order of rescission, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was based on the procedural due process requirement of a hearing before setting aside an order approving a settlement, regardless of the substantive discrepancy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseCompromise and Release agreementclerical errorpermanent disability advancesattorneys' feestypographical errorEAMS system
References
0
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a monetary sanction proposed against attorney Michael Linn by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Linn objected to the sanction, claiming he was denied due process due to a discrepancy in the service date of the WCAB's Notice of Intention. While the Notice stated a February 13, 2009 service date, Linn's evidence indicated actual service on February 17, 2009. Despite this, the WCAB acknowledges the discrepancy but notes Linn's objection was timely based on the actual service date. Consequently, the WCAB grants Linn an additional five days to file further objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonetary SanctionsMichael LinnEsq.Notice of IntentionGood CauseDue ProcessRequisite NoticeObjectionsTimely Response
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adebahr v. 3840 Orloff Avenue Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the lawful cancellation of a workers’ compensation insurance policy. The primary issue was whether the carrier's May 25, 1979 cancellation notice complied with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54(5), which mandates strict conformance for service via certified or registered mail with a return receipt. The carrier provided a return receipt with a date discrepancy and an acknowledgment form, but the Board found an insufficient nexus to the cancellation notice. The appellate court affirmed the Board's conclusion, agreeing that the carrier failed to establish strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements, citing the date discrepancy and a credibility question regarding the underwriter's testimony.

Insurance CancellationStatutory ComplianceCertified MailRegistered MailReturn ReceiptBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewCredibility QuestionPost-Office ErrorNotice Requirements
References
5
Case No. MON 0248414 MON 0331722
Regular
Jul 14, 2008

SANDRA WHIGHAM vs. CHIPTON-ROSS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a lien claim denial based on a licensing name discrepancy. The WCAB rescinded the denial, finding that the lien claimant should have an opportunity to prove its licensing or fictitious business name compliance. The case is returned for further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the lien claimant's charges.

Lien claimantSB Surgery CenterWCJFindings and OrderPetition for reconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseFictitious nameBusiness and Professions Code § 17910Medical BoardReasonableness of charges
References
5
Case No. ADJ2184889
Regular
Dec 31, 2008

JISTINA DORSEY vs. ELITE PERSONNEL SERVICE, UNITED WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION, BROADSPIRE VAN NUYS, Trans Pacific Insurance Company, CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration due to a lack of valid proof of service and a discrepancy in the verification date. Even if these procedural defects were overlooked, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The underlying issues involved a special employee finding, joint and several liability, and the dismissal of CIGA.

Special employeeGeneral employerJoint and several liabilityInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Insolvent carrierLegion InsuranceInsurance Code 11663Proof of servicePetition for reconsideration
References
3
Case No. LBO 0324506
Regular
Dec 21, 2007

MICHELLE B. COSTA vs. KERLAN-JOBE ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding of industrial injury to the applicant's bilateral shoulders. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the injury claim during the specified employment period, noting discrepancies in the applicant's work dates and duties. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on the shoulder injury issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryBilateral ShouldersSurgery SchedulerCumulative TraumaQualified Medical EvaluatorApportionmentFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
1
Case No. MON 0319751, MON 0319752, MON 0319757
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN vs. WARNER BROTHERS, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded previous findings, and returned the cases to the trial level for further development of the record. This action was taken due to deficiencies in the medical evidence regarding the applicant's left knee injury and discrepancies in the apportionment of permanent disability. The Board also noted issues with identifying the responsible employers and the basis for certain awards.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDFindings and AwardsRECONSIDERATIONGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEtemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityApportionment
References
3
Case No. VNO 0496552
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

ROSA PEREZ vs. MARY O'CONNELL, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration due to a discrepancy in the applicant's temporary total disability (TTD) period. The Board rescinded the prior award finding an unbroken period of TTD, noting that paid indemnity payments suggest interruptions. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ to address the TTD duration accurately.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRosa PerezMary O'ConnellAmerican Manufacturers Mutual Insurance CompanyBroadspirehousekeeperindustrial injuryleft upper extremityleft ankleleft foot
References
0
Case No. ADJ8166088
Regular
Apr 10, 2015

GUILLERMO GARCIA vs. QUETICO LOGISTICS, LLC, TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC.

Applicant sought removal from an order continuing his workers' compensation case to trial, arguing his condition was not permanent and stationary and required further medical development on urological, sexual, and sleep issues. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal. They adopted the WCJ's reasoning but noted discrepancies regarding applicant's ongoing treatment. Therefore, the applicant's request to rescind the order and continue the case was denied.

Petition for Removalrescinding Ordercontinued to trialpermanent and stationarymedical record developmenturological complaintssexual dysfunctionsleep disordermedical treatment reportsMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 128 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