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. 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. ADJ9350015
Regular
Feb 24, 2017

LAURA SIERRA vs. RUIZ CONTRACTING, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by MEADOWBROOKS INSURANCE GROUP, ICW

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Star Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Star Insurance failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish entitlement to contribution. Furthermore, the petition did not adequately explain why new medical evidence was unavailable prior to the close of discovery. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportBurden of ProofAffirmative of the IssuePreponderance of the EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionReasonable Medical ProbabilityInadequate Medical HistoriesCumulative Trauma
References
Case No. ADJ7432904
Regular
Sep 24, 2012

NEDA MOTAVAKEL vs. FANTASTIC SAM'S, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE CO., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLP, STAR INSURANCE CO., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLP, ENDURANCE WORKERS' COMPENSATION, SOUTHERN INSURANCE CO., FIRSTCOMP OMAHA

This case involves an appeal by Star and Tower Insurance Companies regarding a workers' compensation award. The primary issue is the applicant's average weekly earnings, specifically the inclusion of tip income, which was not adequately substantiated by documentary evidence. The Appeals Board found the initial decision lacked substantial evidence regarding earnings and rescinded the award. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to properly develop the evidentiary record on earnings and insurance coverage dates before a new decision is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeda MotavakelFantastic Sam'sTower Select Insurance CompanyStar Insurance CompanyIllinois Midwest Insurance AgencyLLEndurance Workers' CompensationSouthern Insurance CompanyFirstComp Omaha
References
Case No. ADJ8501790
Regular
Jul 29, 2015

Kelly Chase vs. St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding of industrial injury for a professional hockey player against the St. Louis Blues. The WCAB found insufficient connection to California for jurisdiction, citing the player's limited games in the state compared to his overall career. This decision followed the precedent set in *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*, which requires a legitimate and substantial connection to the state for jurisdiction. The WCAB concluded that 21 games out of 485 did not meet this standard for a cumulative injury claim.

WCABSt. Louis Blues Hockey ClubFederal Insurance CompanyADJ8501790Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationcumulative industrial injuryprofessional hockey playersubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationssubstantial medical evidence
References
Case No. ADJ6720899
Regular
May 15, 2012

MELISSA ROSAS vs. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of San Bernardino Police Department's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant, Melissa Rosas, sustained a compensable injury in the form of cancer. This decision was based on the applicant being a police officer exposed to known carcinogens and the presumption under Labor Code § 3212.1 not being rebutted by the defense. The judge found the applicant's treating physician's opinion on variable cancer latency periods more persuasive than the defense expert's.

Labor Code § 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officercarcinogen exposurebenzenecigarette smokegasoline fumesauto accidentsvehicle firesresidence fires
References
Case No. ADJ4648071 (AHM 0111231)
Regular
May 05, 2010

JOYCE SIMON vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Joyce Simon's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights. The WCAB also denied her petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The decision relies on established legal definitions of "final" orders in workers' compensation proceedings. Removal was denied as reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision later issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderRemovalWCJ's Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ1160669 (VNO 0449176) ADJ1286605 (VNO 0449172) ADJ3447679 (VNO 0449169) ADJ3802766 (VNO 0449166) ADJ4061917 (VNO 0449171)
Regular
Jul 15, 2014

LAURO GUERRERO vs. UNIVERSAL ALLOY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, stating the petition was improper because it was not taken from a final order and the hearing had been canceled. Furthermore, the petition was dismissed as it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. The Board admonished the lien claimant's attorney for the filing, noting potential sanctions for wasting judicial resources.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalWCJ ReportAdmonishmentLien ClaimantSanctionsUnverified PetitionJurisdictional Requirements
References
Case No. ADJ9798663
Regular
Sep 02, 2015

ALEJANDRO SAUCEDO SAHAGUN vs. TXC LOUTER'S DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous award. The applicant sought to change treating physicians outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN), arguing the MPN failed to meet access standards for primary treating physicians within 15 miles or 30 minutes of his home or work. The Board found the trial judge applied an incorrect, less stringent access standard, and remanded the case for application of the proper standard. The applicant's injury and initial treatment within the MPN were admitted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPN access standardsAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5rural areasprimary treating physicianorthopedic physiciansoccupational health servicesLab. Code § 4600Lab. Code § 4616
References
Case No. ADJ7181805
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.

This case involves a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failing to pay the required lien activation fee before a scheduled lien conference. The claimant argued that defense counsel informed them the conference was scheduled in error, but the Board found this was not a valid reason to avoid the fee. The Board affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that only the Board, not private parties, can cancel a conference. The claimant was also admonished for failing to properly notify the Board of changes in representation.

Lien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimLien ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDeath BenefitsOff CalendarCal. Code Regs tit. 8 § 10240(a)Lab. Code § 4903.06(a)
References
Case No. ADJ8514496
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

RONALD FLORES OPORTO vs. THE PRINT LAB, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Flores Oporto v. The Print Lab and The Hartford. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. They further extended great weight to the judge's credibility determination, as is customary in such matters. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8514496Van Nuys District OfficeTHE PRINT LABTHE HARTFORDRonald Flores Oporto
References
Showing 1-10 of 283 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