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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ3525697 (LAO 0534774) ADJ2342373 (LAO 0512482) ADJ1310306 (LAO 0568035) ADJ2645702 (LAO 0519888) ADJ1384751 (LAO 0568036) ADJ2871875 (ANA 0235799)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALICE BRYANT vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA, permissibly self-insured, UCLA MEDICAL CENTER; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves applicant Alice Bryant's petition for reconsideration of prior dismissed workers' compensation claims and a Labor Code section 132a retaliation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's findings. The WCAB concluded that Bryant's claims were previously dismissed, with some dismissed by her own request and others for failure to prosecute. Furthermore, the WCAB found that Bryant failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud and lacked the required diligence to reopen these final dismissals, even with newly discovered evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRegents of the University of CaliforniaSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 132aRetaliation claimExtrinsic fraudDismissed claims
References
Case No. ADJ1282419 (LAO 0846452) ADJ915214 (LAO 0854736)
Regular
Feb 01, 2010

VALERIE VANCE DILLON vs. TJ MAXX, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves a Compromise and Release agreement between the applicant and defendants. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action is contingent on the workers' compensation administrative law judge approving the settlement. If not approved, the original decision could be reinstated, with the right to seek reconsideration.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionTrial LevelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSalvage and ClaimsSalvage and ClaimsSalvage and Claims
References
Case No. ADJ8577392, ADJ8577393
Regular
Dec 26, 2014

TERESA MARTINEZ vs. CHELO'S HAIR FASHION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's finding that Teresa Martinez was an employee of Chelo's Hair Fashion, not an independent contractor. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the judge erred in this determination. The Board found that the applicant established a prima facie case of employment, and the defendant failed to present evidence to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the initial finding of employment was upheld.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusBorello FactorsRight of ControlPrima Facie CaseReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHairdresserSalon
References
Case No. ADJ10296423
Regular
Jan 30, 2020

SEYED NAVID MOUSAVIRAD vs. LAFAYETTE PARK HOTEL AND SPA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original decision finding no violation of Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no evidence the employer knew about a work-related injury or the intent to file a claim. The applicant was on medical leave for an unrelated condition and terminated after exhausting that leave. The Board clarified that the applicant takes nothing on his claim, rather than it being dismissed on procedural grounds.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliationworkers' compensation claimprima facie caselegal rightemployer dutyindustrial injuryadverse consequencesmedical leave
References
Case No. ADJ11369357, ADJ11369329
Regular
May 21, 2025

GLORIA DAVIS vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Gloria Davis, the applicant, sought reconsideration of Findings and Orders issued on February 7, 2025. The original orders found she sustained a lumbar spine injury but denied her Labor Code section 132a claim for discrimination. Davis contended that the F&O was a result of fraud and WCJ bias, specifically regarding her termination from Kaiser Foundation Hospital for alleged HIPAA violations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's credibility determination and finding no evidence that Davis was discriminated against due to her industrial injuries.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGLORIA DAVISKAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESINC.ADJ11369357ADJ11369329Oakland District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONpatient care technician
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ9298865
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

Oscar Scagliotti vs. Elmore Toyota

This case concerns Oscar Scagliotti's claim of retaliatory termination by Elmore Toyota in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Scagliotti established a prima facie case by showing his termination occurred immediately after he left work for industrial injury treatment. The Board found Elmore Toyota's stated reason of leaving without permission was not credible and contradicted by the close temporal proximity to his injury notification and deviation from standard procedures. Compensation and penalties are deferred pending further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie ClaimTerminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical TreatmentDisadvantageous Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ9030735
Regular
Jul 08, 2014

HECTOR CASILLAS vs. XERXES CORPORATION, BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Xerxes Corporation's Petition for Removal. The Board found that while the defendant raised legitimate concerns about potential fraud, these issues were not relevant to the applicant's current claim. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, concluding that the evidence presented did not support a fraudulent claim and the forum was not appropriate for addressing concerns about running, capping, and steering. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardrunningcappingsteeringfraudulent claimadministrative law judge reportADJ9030735Xerxes CorporationBroadspire Claims Services
References
Case No. WCK 0069591
Regular
Apr 24, 2008

JIM WESTON vs. SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The applicant, a firefighter trainee, sought reconsideration of the denial of his discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a. The Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the employer did not violate section 132a, as the applicant's termination was due to performance issues and not his industrial knee injury. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his injury, as required by the *Lauher* decision.

Labor Code section 132aprima facie casediscriminationindustrial injuryfirefighterparamedicprobationary firefighteracademy trainingmodified dutyperformance evaluation
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,985 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