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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. VNO 0386181
Regular
Apr 05, 2007

SUSAN PASCALE vs. BLUE CROSS/WELLPOINT DENTAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION on behalf of FREMONT INDEMNITY

This case concerns applicant Susan Pascale's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to industrial injuries resulting in fibromyalgia and other conditions. The WCJ awarded 80% permanent disability, apportioning 20% to applicant's pre-existing personality traits based on medical opinions. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the apportionment was supported by substantial medical evidence of causation, as allowed by recent statutory changes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusan PascaleBlue Cross/Wellpoint DentalCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont IndemnityVNO 0386181Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationApplicantDefendantWCJ
References
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. LAO 0878674
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

KARLA BUENO vs. PLAZA DEFENDANT LA RAZA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that barred a lien claim due to the alleged lack of a fictitious business name permit. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant presented a surgical clinic license, the record was unclear about its actual business name and compliance with fictitious name filing requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the lien claimant's true name and establish its compliance with fictitious business name laws.

Fictitious Business Name StatementSurgical Clinic LicenseHealth ServicesBusiness and Professions CodeMedical BoardLien ClaimantOutpatient SettingAdministrative Law JudgeReconsiderationReasonableness of Fees
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. ADJ5810088, ADJ6789908
Regular
Jan 30, 2015

EMBER HOUSTON vs. BSK ASSOCIATES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of two stipulated awards where the administrative law judge named "SCIF Insured Fresno" instead of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Appeals Board rule 10550 requires the use of a party's "full legal name" in stipulated awards. Since the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) name lacks legal effect, the Board amended both awards to correctly identify State Compensation Insurance Fund as the obligor.

Stipulated AwardsReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLegal NameAppeals Board Rule 10550Full Legal NameSCIF Insured FresnoState Compensation Insurance FundWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ14015513
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

BRADEN NANEZ vs. 3 STONEDEGGS, INC., TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board rescinded the initial Findings and Order, finding the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service. The Board applied the commercial traveler rule, determining the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claim is not barred by the going and coming rule or intoxication, and the applicant sustained a fractured right femur. Issues of traumatic brain injury and bruised lung are deferred for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionFindings and OrderApplicantEmployerAdjustedAdjudication NumberRedding District OfficeInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)
References
Case No. STK 0189570
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

JOSEPH BUENO vs. AMERICAN FIRE SYSTEMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, allowing a lien claim of $10,838.43 for facility fees. The defendant argued the lien should be disallowed due to the lien claimant's alleged lack of a fictitious name permit. However, the Board found the lien claimant met its burden of proof by demonstrating proper licensure and that it was not operating under a fictitious name, thus not requiring a fictitious name permit from the Medical Board.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantFictitious name permitMedical Board of CaliforniaFacility feesArthroscopic surgeryStipulated awardPermanent disabilityFuture medical treatmentAmbulatory surgical centers
References
Case No. LAO 0819419, LAO 0819420
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

RUBEN MARQUEZ vs. HOLLYWOOD GLASS COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order disallowing the lien claim of S&B Surgery Center, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found that while S&B Surgery Center likely met licensing requirements for its services, it needed to establish proper compliance with fictitious business name statement requirements or amend its claim to reflect its true corporate name. The case is to be returned to the trial level to address these issues and redetermine the reasonable value of S&B's services.

Fictitious Business NameLien ClaimantLicensing StatusSurgical Clinic LicenseBusiness and Professions Code Section 17910Outpatient SettingMedical BoardDepartment of Health ServicesBurden of ProofReasonable Fee
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Showing 1-10 of 826 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