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. ADJ982538 (SAC 0225494)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

GARY SEABROOKS vs. BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS, RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Gary Seabrooks' numerous petitions because they were filed without a corresponding final determination. The WCAB removed the case on its own motion to address Seabrooks' pattern of repeatedly filing unmeritorious and harassing documents, which has consumed significant board resources. Consequently, the WCAB has issued a notice of intention to declare Seabrooks a vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order, restricting his ability to file future documents without prior leave. This action is intended to prevent further abuse of the workers' compensation system and allow for the expeditious resolution of other parties' cases.

Vexatious litigantpropria personapetitions for reconsiderationdismissalremovalnotice of intentionRule 10782Labor Code section 5310unmeritorious petitionsharassment
References
Case No. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ10731404
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, OPSEC; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is issuing a notice of intention to declare applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott a vexatious litigant. This action is prompted by Mr. Scott's repeated filing of unmeritorious and repetitive claims and petitions, despite being informed of procedural rules and settlement agreements. If declared a vexatious litigant, Mr. Scott will be subject to a pre-filing order requiring him to obtain permission before filing any new documents or applications with the WCAB. This measure aims to prevent further abuse of the judicial process and conserve WCAB resources.

Vexatious litigantAppeals BoardPre-filing orderPropria personaReconsiderationLabor CodeCarve-out agreementADRCompromise and ReleaseSection 132a
References
Case No. ADJ3885285 (FRE 0248529) ADJ3795787 (FRE 0247126)
Regular
Dec 30, 2008

Larry Shores vs. CITY OF MADERA; ACCLAMATION FRESNO

This case concerns a worker's compensation claim for a back and spine injury sustained by Larry Shores. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded sanctions imposed on the defendant for litigation tactics, and rescinded a penalty for delayed temporary disability payments. However, it otherwise affirmed the finding of industrial injury, awarded penalties for unreasonable delay in medical treatment, and upheld the need for ongoing medical care, including surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLarry ShoresCity of MaderaAcclamation FresnoADJ3885285ADJ3795787Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3362266 (LAO 0805454)
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

ROBERTO PINEDA vs. CIRCUIT CITY, CIRCUIT CITY SELFINSURED SECURITY FUND

The WCAB dismissed Shandler & Associates' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order (Notice of Intent to Dismiss Liens), not a final order. Even if treated as a removal petition, it was denied due to a lack of demonstrated significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board, however, removed the case on its own motion to consider sanctions against Shandler & Associates for filing a frivolous petition. Sanctions of $250.00 are proposed for bad-faith litigation tactics, payable to the General Fund.

Notice of Intent to Dismiss LiensPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Interlocutory Procedural OrdersSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmBad-Faith ActionsFrivolous Petition
References
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592) ADJ1224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Feb 17, 2009

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA. COM and SYSMASTER CORPORATION, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order being challenged was procedural and not a final appealable order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The applicant's arguments regarding rescinded orders, discovery abuse, and due process were unaddressed as the procedural nature of the order precluded review. The Board cautioned the applicant against filing frivolous petitions, warning of potential sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderProcedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Substantive RightsDiscovery IssuesAbuse of Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ6747918
Regular
Dec 27, 2010

BERNARD ELKINS vs. SCULLY DISTRIBUTIONS SERVICES, HARTFORD SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order denying sanctions without prejudice was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. The defendant had sought sanctions for alleged frivolous litigation, but the judge ordered them to first resolve venue disputes in a related San Bernardino case. This decision upholds the principle that reconsideration and removal are reserved for final orders or exceptional circumstances.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalsanctionsfrivolous litigationbad-faith litigationvenuechoice of venuewithout prejudicefinal order
References
Case No. ADJ6463173
Regular
Feb 13, 2015

Salvador Orozco vs. Golden Wheel Corporation, Pacific Compensation Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded an order from a WCJ that sanctioned a lien claimant and ordered personal appearances from its representatives. The WCAB found that the WCJ abused his discretion by issuing sanctions and appearance orders without affording the lien claimant proper due process and notice. Specifically, the lien claimant was not adequately notified that its compliance with Business & Professions Code section 22450 regarding photocopier licensing would be litigated and result in sanctions. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with due process, allowing for evidence and legal briefing on the licensing issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNotice of Intention to SanctionWCJMonetary SanctionsBusiness LicenseBusiness and Professions Code Section 22450Due Process
References
Case No. ADJ1122093 (SAC 0279029) ADJ988134 (SAC 0267349)
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

BOBBIE SANDERS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Bobbie Sanders, previously declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 10782, filed a Petition for Removal without court approval. Rule 10782 requires pre-filing authorization for pro se litigants, with exceptions for licensed attorneys. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to warrant re-litigation of previously determined issues. Therefore, the document was not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removalin pro perworkers' compensationEmployment Development DepartmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1122093ADJ988134
References
Case No. ADJ9257767
Regular
Aug 28, 2014

JILL ALES vs. DRUG ABUSE ALTERNATIVE CENTER, CYPRESS INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMES STATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in the case of Jill Ales versus Drug Abuse Alternative Center. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for this denial. However, the Board noted that a change of venue might be considered if trial is required and specific listed witnesses must testify.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportChange of VenueDenial of RemovalDrug Abuse Alternative CenterCypress InsuranceBerkshire HathawayADJ9257767Anaheim District Office
References
Showing 1-10 of 423 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