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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ9320206
Regular
May 08, 2014

MIKE VILLALOBOS vs. WESTERN VILLAGE HEALTH CLUB, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Mike Villalobos seeking removal of a decision denying his request to change venue from San Luis Obispo to Santa Barbara. The WCAB denied removal, holding that Santa Barbara only has a satellite office of the Oxnard District Office, not a formal WCAB district office. The Board deferred to the DWC's administrative construction that only district offices count for venue purposes, citing practical differences in staffing and facilities. Therefore, the original venue in San Luis Obispo was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueDistrict OfficeSatellite OfficeAdministrative ConstructionLabor Code Section 5501.5Goleta District OfficeOxnard District OfficeSanta Barbara Satellite Office
References
Case No. ADJ7850439
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

Edgar Tabo vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a police officer, injured himself in an off-duty bicycle crash. The Board denied compensation because the applicant failed to establish that his subjective belief of needing to train for an optional bicycle patrol course was objectively reasonable. His off-duty recreational activity did not meet the requirements for an exception to the exclusion for such injuries under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Therefore, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEdgar TaboCity and County of San Francisco Police DepartmentPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ7850439Oakland District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ7326084, ADJ7326039
Regular
May 10, 2013

THERESA GONZALES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior order that assigned the applicant an Occupational Group Number (OGN) of 251. The applicant, a Senior Special Investigator handling child abuse cases, argued her duties warranted a higher OGN due to integral law enforcement training and the potential for dangerous situations. The Board agreed that while not a sworn police officer (OGN 490), her quasi-law enforcement duties and required training placed her more appropriately in Group 390 (Security Officer), rescinding the prior finding and returning the case for further proceedings.

Occupational Group NumberSenior Special InvestigatorLaw enforcement trainingIntegral part of occupationSecurity OfficerPolice OfficerSworn officersPermanent Disabilities Rating ScheduleReconsiderationJoint Findings and Order
References
Case No. ADJ6822166
Regular
May 27, 2011

Jackie Thompson vs. Los Angeles Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that a school district police officer was entitled to a cancer presumption for his prostate cancer. The Board found that while the applicant was a peace officer, his authority was defined by Penal Code section 830.32, not section 830.1 as initially determined. Because Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption specifically lists peace officers defined under certain Penal Code sections and does not include those under 830.32, the applicant is not entitled to the presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1Penal Code 830.32Peace OfficerSchool District Police OfficerCancer PresumptionIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWCABLaw Enforcement ActivitiesWilliam Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act
References
Case No. ADJ176741
Regular
Jan 27, 2009

Anthony Anderson vs. CITY OF PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The WCJ initially found that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of his employment as a police officer. Reconsideration was granted, and the Board found that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury in the form of colon cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of compensabilitycolon cancerpolice officercarcinogen exposurebenzeneasbestosagreed medical evaluatorsubstantial medical evidencerebutting presumption
References
Case No. ADJ6990407
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

DANIEL CHESNUT vs. MANTECA POLICE DEPARTMENT, MUNICIPAL POOLING WALNUT CREEK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant, a police officer, sought to establish that his testicular cancer was presumptively industrial under Labor Code section 3212.1. However, the Agreed Medical Evaluator concluded that the cancer's manifestation fell outside the established ten-year minimum latency period for solid tumors, thus rebutting the statutory presumption. The Board found this conclusion to be substantial evidence, particularly as the applicant's cancer was not characterized by extreme aggressiveness or massive exposure doses that might shorten latency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDaniel ChesnutManteca Police DepartmentMunicipal Pooling Walnut CreekADJ6990407Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.1testicular cancerinjurious exposurepolice officer
References
Case No. ADJ10053885
Regular
Dec 24, 2015

MARK NEVITT vs. PARAMOUNT PAINTING, MARKEL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal, overturning an order denying a change of venue. The WCAB found that venue was proper in Santa Barbara because the applicant resides and his attorney's principal place of business is located there. The Board determined that the Santa Barbara office provides the same essential services as other district offices, making it a valid location for venue under Labor Code section 5501.5. Consequently, the case venue was transferred to the Santa Barbara District Office.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5VenueDistrict OfficeSanta Barbara District OfficeSan Luis Obispo District OfficeApplicant's ResidencePlace of InjuryAttorney's Principal Place of Business
References
Case No. ADJ8534435
Regular
Jan 11, 2013

RONALD EHMAN vs. AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because venue orders are not considered final. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding the WCJ properly transferred venue to the Oakland District Office. This decision was based on the applicant's residence in Solano County and the injury occurring in Contra Costa County, neither of which have district offices, and Oakland being the nearest office to the injury site. The defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm would result from the venue change.

VenueReconsiderationRemovalLabor Code section 5501.5District OfficeApplicant ResidenceInjury LocationContra Costa CountySolano CountyOakland District Office
References
Case No. ADJ8962530
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

Angelina Campos vs. INTEGRATED HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who initially filed in Santa Barbara but was rerouted to Oxnard and then San Luis Obispo. The applicant, now represented, sought to transfer venue back to Santa Barbara, arguing it was the proper location due to her residence, attorney's office, and original filing intent. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's denial, and ordered the venue transferred to Santa Barbara, finding it a valid district office with full services. The decision emphasizes that venue is mandatory in the county of residence or attorney's principal place of business if a district office exists there.

WCABPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Pro PerSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSanta Barbara District OfficeOxnard District OfficeApplication for Adjudication of ClaimCumulative Injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,918 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