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. ADJ10053885
Regular
Dec 24, 2015

MARK NEVITT vs. PARAMOUNT PAINTING, MARKEL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal, overturning an order denying a change of venue. The WCAB found that venue was proper in Santa Barbara because the applicant resides and his attorney's principal place of business is located there. The Board determined that the Santa Barbara office provides the same essential services as other district offices, making it a valid location for venue under Labor Code section 5501.5. Consequently, the case venue was transferred to the Santa Barbara District Office.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5VenueDistrict OfficeSanta Barbara District OfficeSan Luis Obispo District OfficeApplicant's ResidencePlace of InjuryAttorney's Principal Place of Business
References
Case No. ADJ6767357
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

JOHN ZOUCHA vs. ALCAL ARCADE INSULATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior award, finding applicant's injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment. The Board determined that the applicant's commute to a fixed job site was not an exception to the "going and coming rule," as the job did not require transportation between multiple work locations nor did the applicant's occasional transport of materials elevate it to a special errand. The Board concluded that the facts were analogous to existing case law where an injury during a regular commute to a fixed employment location is not compensable. Therefore, the applicant was awarded nothing by way of his claim.

going and coming ruleLabor Code section 3600(a)AOE/COEindustrial injurycommutespecial risk exceptionHinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Voice v Workers' Comp. Appeals Boardpersonal vehicleemployer liability
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 The Appeals Board rescinded the denial and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that Premier was properly licensed as an outpatient facility and that the defendant did not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. ADJ10426125
Regular
Sep 24, 2018

ABEL RIANO TORRES vs. EAS FARM LABOR, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision barring applicant Abel Riano Torres's claim under the "coming and going rule." The administrative law judge (WCJ) found the applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment. Applicant argued his own transportation was implicitly required to reach various job locations, creating an exception to the rule. However, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, distinguishing this case from relevant precedent due to the applicant's testimony indicating a fixed worksite and no compensation for travel time. The Board also noted the petition lacked sufficient record citations to support the applicant's arguments.

AOE/COEComing and Going RuleLabor Code Section 3600Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPetition for Reconsideration ReportHinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Special Benefit Exception
References
Case No. ANA 402211
Regular
Apr 14, 2008

CHERYL BUTLER DARBY vs. BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT c/o SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior order denying a change of venue. The Board found the defendant's objection to venue was timely filed, based on the applicant's attorney's principal place of business. Consequently, venue was changed to the San Bernardino district office, where the applicant resides and the injury occurred.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.5(c)WCAB Rule 10410Principal Place of BusinessTimely ObjectionApplicant ResidenceCounty of InjurySan Bernardino District OfficeSanta Ana District Office
References
Case No. ADJ10444519
Regular
Apr 11, 2019

JORGE ZUNIGA vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding an administrative law judge's order to change venue to the San Diego District Office. The defendant argued improper service of the venue change petition and the subsequent order, but the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, deferring the service and sanctions issue to the trial court. The venue change was justified by applicant's attorney's principal place of business being in San Diego and the injury's location.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJService of ProcessSanctionsLabor Code Section 5501.5Cumulative TraumaApplication for Adjudication of ClaimGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ 8101286
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

BLANCA LARA vs. FOSTER FARMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Foster Farms' petition for removal, upholding the initial decision to deny a change of venue. The defendant argued for transfer to the Long Beach office based on Labor Code Section 5501.5, claiming the applicant's attorney's principal place of business was an improper venue choice. However, the WCAB found venue appropriate in Los Angeles County, as the applicant resided there, and the injury allegedly occurred there. No other grounds for good cause to transfer venue were established.

Petition for RemovalVenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaPrincipal Place of BusinessObjectionsChange of VenueApplicant Residence
References
Case No. ADJ7669691
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

Ellis Hobbs vs. New England Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles, Great Divine Insurance Company c/o Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers

Great Divide Insurance Company (GDIC) sought to change venue from Anaheim to San Francisco for a workers' compensation claim filed by applicant Ellis Hobbs. Hobbs initially chose Anaheim as the venue based on his attorney's principal place of business. GDIC timely objected to this venue selection, as permitted by Labor Code section 5501.5(c). Because Hobbs does not reside in California and his last injurious exposure occurred in San Francisco, the Appeals Board granted GDIC's Petition for Removal and ordered the venue changed to the San Francisco district office.

Petition for RemovalVenueLabor Code section 5501.5Principal place of businessObjection to Venue SelectionLast alleged injurious exposureSan Francisco district officeAnaheim district officeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to Change Venue
References
Case No. ADJ8017582
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

RONALD BRENT ALEXANDER vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, BERKLEY SPECIALTY; PITTSBURG STEELERS; ARIZONA CARDINALS; CAROLINA PANTHERS

This case involves a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim filed by a former professional football player. The applicant initially selected the Santa Ana district office based on his attorney's principal place of business. However, the defendant insurance carrier timely objected to this venue, arguing that pursuant to Labor Code section 5501.5(c), venue must be in the county of the applicant's residence or last injurious exposure if an objection is raised. As the applicant does not reside in California, the Board granted the petition for removal and remanded the case to determine the county of last exposure to establish proper venue.

Petition for RemovalVenue TransferLabor Code Section 5501.5Principal Place of BusinessObjection to VenueLast Injurious ExposureWCAB Rule 10410Applicant's ResidenceIndustrial InjuryProfessional Football Player
References
Case No. ADJ9771745, ADJ9547788, ADJ9805683
Regular
Dec 07, 2016

MARTIN TORTOLEDO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Martin Tortoledo's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings, giving great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination after observing the witness. No substantial evidence warranted rejecting the WCJ's credibility assessment. Additionally, the Board noted that a single physician's opinion can constitute substantial evidence, even if it conflicts with other medical opinions.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJcredibility determinationsubstantial evidencephysician's opinionGarzaPlaceBARRETT BUSINESS SERVICESPermissibly Self-Insured
References
Showing 1-10 of 619 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