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. ADJ11276421
Regular
Mar 15, 2019

SABAS GAMBOA vs. FULLERTON PACIFIC INTERIORS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing defendant Clark Builders and others, arguing it was improper as Clark Builders was not a party. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and from a non-final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion to correct the record, as Clark Builders was never properly a party. The Board rescinded the original dismissal order and issued a new order dismissing Arch Indemnity Insurance Company and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. without prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalOrder DismissingLack of EmploymentClark BuildersArch Indemnity Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.Fullerton Pacific Interiors
References
Case No. ADJ19198086
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

MILTON WINSTON vs. ORACLE AMERICA, INC.; SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE

The defendant, Oracle America, Inc. and Safety National Insurance, petitioned for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that applicant Milton Winston was employed for a sufficient period to qualify for psychiatric injury compensation under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The defendant contended the WCJ erred by including pre-onboarding activities in the employment calculation and by relying on an employment stipulation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition, asserting that employment includes unpaid pre-onboarding service and that the defendant failed to prove otherwise or show good cause to withdraw from the stipulation. Consequently, the Board affirmed that the applicant's claim was not barred by the six-month employment requirement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix months employmentactual servicepre-onboardingonboarding processpaid workstipulationburden of proof
References
Case No. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
Showing 1-3 of 3 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