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. GRO 024430
En Banc
Dec 08, 2004

Myron Abney vs. Aera Energy, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

The Appeals Board held that the amended Labor Code section 5814, which changed penalty calculations for unreasonable delay of compensation, applies to delays that occurred before its June 1, 2004 operative date, if the finding of unreasonableness is made on or after that date.

SB 899Labor Code section 5814unreasonable delaypenaltyoperative datetemporary disability indemnityHofmeister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.prior to operative dateon or after operative dateconclusive presumption
References
Case No. ADJ4198621 (VNO 0495392)
Regular
Sep 28, 2012

ANTONIO BARBUTO (Deceased), ADRIANA BARBUTO MIGLIANO (Widow) vs. SIEMERS ENGINEERING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over the decedent's earning capacity for calculating death benefits following his fatal industrial injury. The defendant, SCIF, argues the judge's finding that the decedent was promoted to backhoe operator and had the earning capacity of that role lacks substantial evidence. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the matter for further proceedings due to an inadequate record. The Board emphasized the need for a proper evidentiary record detailing the decedent's employment, qualifications, and earnings before a determination can be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boarddeath benefitsearning capacitybackhoe operatorpromotionactual wagesLabor Code section 4453average weekly earningsunion representativeprevailing hourly wage
References
Case No. ADJ9813999
Regular
Jan 31, 2018

JOSEPH MORGAN vs. SYSTEMS OPERATIONS SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous finding that applicant Joseph Morgan was an independent contractor. The WCAB found that Morgan was an employee of Systems Operations Services (SOS) because SOS exercised pervasive control over his work. Factors supporting this decision include SOS providing tools, housing, and a vehicle, dictating work hours and locations, and Morgan's work being an integral part of SOS's core business. The WCAB determined that SOS failed to prove Morgan was an independent contractor excluded from workers' compensation coverage.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent ContractorEmployeeRight to ControlBorello factorsWastewater Treatment Plant OperatorSOSState Compensation Insurance FundAOE/COE
References
Case No. GRO 024430
Significant
Dec 08, 2004

Myron Abney vs. AERA ENERGY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This en banc decision holds that the revised Labor Code section 5814, operative June 1, 2004, applies to unreasonable delays in compensation payments that occurred prior to its operative date, provided the finding of unreasonable delay is made on or after that date.

SB 899Labor Code Section 5814En Banc DecisionReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPenaltyUnreasonable DelayOperative DateStatute of LimitationsConclusive Presumption
References
Case No. ADJ113545 (OAK 0241908)
Regular
Aug 25, 2014

KEVIN BRACKEN vs. TEAM COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, for CAL COMP, In Liquidation, Adjusted By SEDGWICK CMS

In *Bracken v. Team Commercial Construction*, the applicant sought reconsideration of a Finding of Fact that barred his psychiatric injury claim under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant argued that his employment duration exceeded the required six months for a compensable consequence psychiatric injury. However, stipulated facts revealed the applicant worked for the employer for less than the six-month period stipulated by the statute. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the psychiatric claim barred.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurycompensable consequence injurysix-month employment requirementpetition for reconsiderationFinding of FactReport and Recommendationstipulationsjackhammer operatorspecific injury
References
Case No. LAO 838220
Regular
May 14, 2007

MARIA SERAFIN vs. LANSCO DIE CASTING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and remanded the case to determine permanent disability using the 1997 Schedule. This decision stems from the Board's finding that the applicant's treating physician's December 20, 2004, report indicated the existence of permanent disability, triggering an exception under Labor Code section 4660(d). Consequently, the outdated 1997 Schedule, not the 2005 Schedule, must be applied to calculate the applicant's permanent disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria SerafinLansco Die CastingState Compensation Insurance FundLAO 838220ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJIndustrial InjuryRight Shoulder
References
Case No. OAK 240649 OAK 240651 OAK 279879
Regular
Jan 15, 2008

BUNNIE ORANGE vs. HILTON HOTEL CORPORATION, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the administrative law judge incorrectly used the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule instead of the 2005 Schedule for the applicant's cumulative trauma injury. The Board also found the calculation of permanent disability indemnity was improper and remanded the case for re-rating under the 2005 Schedule. Upon remand, any overlap between the current award and a prior stipulated award must be identified and subtracted before calculating the final indemnity.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDBUNNIE ORANGEHILTON HOTEL CORPORATIONSPECIALTY RISK SERVICESOAK 240649OAK 240651OAK 279879OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ11775511
Regular
Sep 25, 2019

FONDA MCGENSY vs. OPERATION SAFEHOUSE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on August 7, 2018. The defendant is seeking reconsideration of the original Findings and Award, arguing the injury is barred by the going and coming rule. The defendant disputes whether the applicant's supervisor ordered her to drive an intern home, which is key to applying the special errand exception. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration to obtain a transcript of the trial testimony to fully assess the factual disputes.

Special errand exceptionGoing and coming rulePetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJTranscriptFactual disputesLegal issuesWCAB Rule 10740Electronic Adjudication Management System
References
Case No. ADJ7945624
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

JUAN SANTA CRUZ vs. MARTIN RUBBER, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision. The applicant claimed injury from continuous trauma as a machine operator but provided inconsistent testimony regarding lifting weights. The employer's testimony contradicted the applicant's account of his duties and lifting requirements. The Board found the applicant's testimony less credible, affirmed the judge's findings, and denied the petition for reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportcredibilityGarza v.Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.industrial injurycontinuous traumamachine operatorPetitioner's Contentionsfraud
References
Case No. ADJ1624407 (VNO 0535954)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

ALFREDO SEPULVEDA vs. WARNER BROS., PSI, PARAMOUNT PICTURES, PSI, CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA

The Appeals Board dismissed Warner Brothers' petition for removal, finding it was not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the WCJ's order awarding medical-legal transportation and lodging expenses. The Board also denied the petition as a petition for reconsideration by operation of law, as it was filed more than 60 days prior. Even if the merits were considered, the petition would have been denied. The employer's arguments regarding Labor Code section 4621(d) and the doctor's report were implicitly rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical-Legal TransportationLodging ExpenseLabor Code Section 4621(d)Substantial EvidenceFalse HistoryWCJ Report
References
Showing 1-10 of 228 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