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. ADJ7225815
Regular
Jun 27, 2012

MICHAEL BARROW vs. WASHINGTON REDSKINS, DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB, NEW YORK GIANTS, TENNESSEE TITANS, CAROLINA PANTHERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE administered by BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC, LEGION INSURANCE in liquidation by CIGA, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that it had jurisdiction over the Dallas Cowboys for applicant Michael Barrow's injury claim. The WCAB determined that while applicant's agent, a California resident, negotiated the contract and communicated acceptance from Los Angeles, this action alone did not establish a "contract of hire" made in California. Crucially, the applicant himself was not in California at the time of acceptance, and the contract required his personal signature to be fully binding. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction over this extraterritorial claim against the Dallas Cowboys.

WCABjurisdictioncontract of hireextraterritorial claimLabor Code 3600.5(a)Labor Code 5305out-of-state injuryprofessional football playeragent authorityoral acceptance
References
Case No. ANA 0393374ANA 0393375
Regular
May 02, 2008

JOHN PAUL LUCAS vs. GREAT BASIN INSTITUTE, ASSOCIATED RISK MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case concerns an applicant injured in California who also received medical treatment and initial benefits in Nevada. The defendant sought to defer jurisdiction to Nevada, citing a Nevada statute and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, arguing the applicant's acceptance of Nevada benefits barred claims in California. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant did not "volitionally" accept Nevada benefits as he was unaware of signing a Nevada claim form and believed he was receiving benefits under California law. Therefore, California retained jurisdiction over the applicant's workers' compensation claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFull Faith and Credit ClauseCompensable Consequence InjuryJurisdictionNevada LawContract of HireIndustrial InjuryIndustrial AccidentReconsiderationWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ14657802
Regular
Sep 19, 2022

STEVE LAUTER vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS FKA CLEVELAND BROWNS, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED, ADMINISTERED BY BERKLEY ENTERTAINMENT, SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FOR FREMONT INSURANCE, IN LIQUIDATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior ruling and amended a finding of fact. The Board affirmed that California lacked personal jurisdiction over the Baltimore Ravens (formerly Cleveland Browns) for applicant's claimed injuries. The decision found no evidence of a contract formed in California and that the applicant's activities with the Browns, including games played in California, occurred after his release and were not connected to his claimed injury. The Board also declined to disturb the WCJ's reliance on pre-2005 medical-legal procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMinimum ContactsSpecial AppearanceContract of HireOffer and AcceptanceOral ContractForum StateLabor Code Section 4062
References
Case No. ADJ 10341584, ADJ 10341594
Regular
Aug 26, 2016

JON SLAGLE vs. KASCO CORPORATION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision denying jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries. The WCAB found jurisdiction exists because the applicant's contract of hire was made in California, even though the injuries occurred in Alabama. This conclusion is based on Labor Code section 5305, which grants jurisdiction when the contract of hire is made in California, and the residency requirement has been deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, the WCAB has jurisdiction over the applicant's claims for compensation.

WCAB jurisdictionLabor Code section 5305contract of hireout of state injuryPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactReport and Recommendationresidency requirementunconstitutionaloral contract
References
Case No. AHM 0121690
Regular
Aug 19, 2008

DENNIS CLARK vs. HMS CONSTRUCTION, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In *Clark v. HMS Construction, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a prior decision asserting California jurisdiction over an applicant's injury claim. The Board found that because the applicant accepted the offer of employment in Maryland, California lacked jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305. Therefore, the prior award was rescinded, and the applicant's claim was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJurisdictionContract of HireLex Loci ContractusOffer and AcceptanceMarylandHawaiiHMS ConstructionInc.State Compensation Insurance Fund
References
Case No. ADJ10393758
Regular
Jun 08, 2018

JOSE BASALDUA VALDEZ vs. NORCAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Rutherford Ashbury, LLC, Patrick F. Mockler

Defendants sought dismissal from a workers' compensation case after the applicant's employer's insurer accepted coverage. The WCJ initially denied this dismissal but later dismissed one defendant without prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the defendants' Petition for Removal, finding it moot due to the subsequent order. However, the Board, on its own motion, granted removal to amend the later order and dismiss the remaining defendant without prejudice, correcting a perceived clerical error.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalGranting RemovalDecision After RemovalOrder Denying Petition to DismissMinute OrderJoinderGeneral ContractorUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSCIF
References
Case No. ADJ8005489
Regular
May 30, 2013

CLAUDIA MONTOYA vs. AGE ADVANTAGE HCS, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claim filed by Firstline Health. The lien was dismissed because Firstline failed to pay the required lien activation fee and did not appear at the lien conference. Although Firstline claimed an oral settlement agreement existed, the evidence presented was a settlement demand, not a finalized agreement. The Board upheld the dismissal, finding Firstline violated Labor Code Section 4903.06.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimantLien Activation FeeLabor Code § 4903.06Dismissal with PrejudiceCompromise and ReleaseOral AgreementLien Claimant Demand Letter
References
Case No. ADJ1184992
Regular
Feb 10, 2015

KATHLEEN MURPHY vs. PETSMART, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a penalty against Petsmart, Inc. for allegedly unreasonably delaying dental treatment. The Board found that Petsmart had no obligation to pay for the dental surgery in advance, as dictated by Labor Code section 4603.2, which requires payment within 45 days after services are provided. While the treating oral surgeon requested prepayment due to high costs, the WCAB determined that the defendant's utilization review approval for the treatment did not constitute an agreement to advance payment. Therefore, the WCAB concluded there was no unreasonable delay or refusal of treatment, negating the basis for a Labor Code section 5814 penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5814unreasonable delaydental careoral surgeryutilization reviewpre-authorizationpayment in advancefee schedule
References
Case No. ADJ18376723
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories
References
Case No. SDO 313688
Regular
May 06, 2008

CRESENCIO BARRERA vs. HNR FRAMING, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision because the administrative law judge (WCJ) failed to apply the *Kunz* standard for determining reasonable facility fees for medical services. The WCJ's decision was found to be internally inconsistent and unsupported by the evidence, particularly regarding the consideration of contractually negotiated rates and usual fees accepted by other providers. The case is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision by a different WCJ.

WCABReconsiderationFacility FeesCPT CodesReasonablenessKunz v. PattersonAmbulatory Surgery CenterMedicareOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleGeographical Area
References
Showing 1-10 of 175 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