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. ADJ4323884 (VNO 0539846) ADJ3206055 (VNO 0539850)
Regular
May 28, 2013

ROSE WALTON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION/CA STATE PRISONS/LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for case ADJ4323884, upholding a prior WCJ decision that replaced an earlier award vacated due to a writ of review. For case ADJ3206055, the Board granted reconsideration and reinstated a June 12, 2012, Findings and Award. This reinstated award found the applicant sustained a specific injury on November 9, 1998, resulting in 2% permanent disability. The Board treated the later vacating order in ADJ3206055 as relating back to an earlier order in ADJ4323884.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardVacating OrderReinstatementPermanent DisabilitySpecific InjuryLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ7750099
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

JERRI USREY vs. SIERRA OAKS SENIOR CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the finding that Sierra Oaks Senior Center violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating applicant Jerri Usrey's employment due to her filing a workers' compensation claim. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning on witness credibility and evidence resolution. However, the determination of reinstatement and lost wages was deferred due to insufficient evidence regarding the availability of suitable work and applicant's ability to perform it. The award of $10,000 for the section 132a violation was affirmed, with further proceedings to address reinstatement and lost wages.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardreinstatementlost wagespoor performanceindustrial injuryadverse treatmentcredibility assessmenttrier of fact
References
Case No. ADJ7407927; ADJ7407928
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

JOSE PEDRO SOTO vs. MARATHON INDUSTRIES, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE CO. OF THE MIDWEST

This case involves defendant Marathon Industries' petitions to rescind orders that reinstated dismissed liens. The WCJ had rescinded the dismissals, finding lien activation fees were paid timely or were not required. However, the Appeals Board ruled that the lien claimants failed to prove prior timely payment of activation fees as required by statute and regulations. Therefore, the Board granted the petitions, rescinded the reinstatement orders, and reinstated the original orders dismissing the liens with prejudice.

WCABRemovalPetition for RemovalLien DismissalLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06(a)(4)WCAB Rule 10859Administrative Director Rule 10208(a)EAMSPrior Timely Payment
References
Case No. AHM 70712
Significant

Jeannie Karaiskos vs. Metagenics, Inc., California Compensation Insurance Co., In Liquidation, California Insurance Guarantee Association, and Risk Enterprise Management Ltd. (Servicing Facility)

The Appeals Board, following a remittitur from the Court of Appeal, rescinds its 2002 decision and reinstates its 2001 decision, affirming that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) is not obligated to pay the lien claim of the Employment Development Department (EDD).

RemittiturEn BancEmployment Development DepartmentEDD lienCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAcovered claimState of Californiarescindedreinstated
References
Case No. ADJ10872182
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

VERONICA AVENDANO MACIAS vs. LOUISE DANELIAN, TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior decision pending reconsideration because the parties reached a proposed settlement. The matter is returned to the trial level for the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to consider the settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the WCJ may reinstate the original decision. This decision does not address the merits of the case.

AOE/COEQME PanelsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderProposed SettlementTrial LevelWCJRescindedReinstatementWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ1306333 (LAO 0818594) ADJ719747 (LAO 0818595) ADJ2637714 (LAO 0865003)
Regular
Jun 09, 2011

ARMIDA PUGA vs. C&D AEROSPACE RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT for ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GAB ROBBINS for CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY & SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed Atlantic Mutual's Petition for Reconsideration as there was no final order to reconsider. However, the Board granted removal to address the underlying issue. They rescinded the WCJ's order that rescinded a prior approval of a Compromise and Release. Consequently, the original Order Approving Compromise and Release, issued on January 26, 2011, is effectively reinstated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Approving Compromise & ReleaseOrder Rescinding OrderMaterial Mistake of FactDue ProcessThird Party AdministratorPrincipalRehabilitation
References
Case No. ADJ16524334
Regular
Apr 10, 2023

TIMOTEO SORIANO vs. MAYROCK INCORPORATED, FALLS LAKE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in *Soriano v. Mayrock Incorporated* to address a newly reached settlement. The Board rescinded the prior trial level decision and remanded the case for the administrative law judge to consider the settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the original decision may be reinstated, allowing for further reconsideration. This order is not a final determination on the merits of the case.

Petition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationRescinded DecisionReturned to Trial LevelProposed SettlementWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJDecision After ReconsiderationFurther ProceedingsOriginal Decision
References
Case No. AHM 0110026
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

SAMUEL C. OROPALLO vs. U.S. FOODSERVICES, INC., LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over an industrial injury and alleged Labor Code section 132a discrimination by U.S. Foodservices. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration but granted the employee's petition. The Board affirmed the original award but deferred the issues of reinstatement, lost wages/benefits, and costs related to the discrimination finding, remanding these to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability IndemnityTransitional ProgramDiscriminationReinstatementLost Wages
References
Case No. ADJ4668407 (RIV 0055963)
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. 2K FABRICATION, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding that State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) did not provide coverage for 2K Fabrication, Inc. on July 8, 2003. The Board ruled that SCIF's cancellation of the employer's policy effective March 18, 2003, was valid. Arguments for coverage based on alleged lack of notice, estoppel due to premium acceptance, audits, and defense of the claim were rejected. The Board found no evidence of a written reinstatement of the canceled policy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPolicy CancellationCoverage DisputeEstoppelWaiverWritten NoticeInsurance ContractPremium PaymentPost-Cancellation Audit
References
Case No. ADJ2254122 (VNO 0535926)
Regular
Mar 09, 2010

RICHARD GUERRA vs. MR. ROOTER PLUMBING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant was terminated in violation of Labor Code section 132a due to his workers' compensation claim. The employer failed to prove business necessity for the termination, as their stated reasons were inconsistent and unsupported by evidence, and the applicant was singled out due to workers' compensation concerns. However, the Board deferred the issues of reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits pending further medical evidence on the applicant's ability to return to work.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationReinstatementRetroactive wagesBusiness necessityPrima facie caseDetrimental treatmentDownsizingQualified injured workerIndependent contractor
References
Showing 1-10 of 217 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