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. ADJ8300983
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

ALBERTO CHICO vs. ONEMOR, INC., dba McDONALD'S, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration for the Jacobs-represented lien claimants, upholding the disallowance of their liens due to a failure to prove industrial injury and insufficient evidence. However, the Board granted reconsideration for the Kauffman-represented lien claimants, rescinding the sanctions previously imposed. While agreeing that the Kauffman claimants also failed to prove injury, the Board found their conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous tactics required for sanctions.

WCABlien claimantspetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderOrder Overruling Objection and Imposing Sanctionsindustrial injuryprobative evidencesanctionsbad-faith actionsfrivolous
References
9
Case No. ADJ8094646
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

ALEJANDRINA BARRETO vs. OUT OF THE SHELL, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, PHARMAFINANCE, LLC, HEALTHCARE FINANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC

This case involves lien claimants PharmaFinance and Healthcare Finance Management, and their representatives Landmark Medical Management and Brian Hall, who sought reconsideration of a decision disallowing their liens for medical treatment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to notice its intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimants and their representatives. This action is due to a pattern of allegedly filing petitions containing false statements about not receiving notices, which violates the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and Labor Code Section 5813. The Board found these claims not persuasive and indicative of a tactic to avoid responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLien ClaimantsHearing RepresentativesIndustrial InjuryFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseNotice of IntentionLabor Code section 5813
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Akhtar

The case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The claimant, a patient representative at a hospital, was terminated after allegedly fondling and kissing a co-worker’s 12-year-old daughter. The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, denying benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, including hearsay testimony from a hospital representative regarding the child's statements and the claimant’s admission of kissing the child on the cheek.

unemployment insurancemisconductterminationhospital employmentpatient representativechild abuse allegationhearsay evidencesubstantial evidenceappealadministrative law judge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Wade

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified her from receiving benefits due to alleged misconduct. The claimant, a customer representative for the New York Telephone Company for over six years, was discharged following a few customer complaints about rudeness and alleged errors in her work performance. Despite testimony from the employer regarding 'breakdowns' in conversations, the record also indicated the claimant was considered a highly competent employee. The court found that the record lacked substantial evidence to establish misconduct, concluding that at most, there was some negligent performance of duties. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconduct DischargeCustomer Service StandardsEmployment TerminationAppeal Board DecisionSufficiency of EvidenceNegligent PerformanceWorkplace RulesDue Process ConcernsRemittal
References
3
Case No. ADJ9307293
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

JUAN GARCIA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. The lien claimant sought penalties, alleging bad faith because the defendant sent an award payment directly to the lien claimant instead of its hearing representative. The Board found no evidence of unreasonable delay, noting the payment was timely sent to the address on file and promptly cashed by the lien claimant, constituting substantial compliance. The Board also suggested the lien claimant's multiple claims and penalty requests, despite timely payment, could constitute bad faith.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationBad Faith ActionsHearing RepresentativeSubstantial ComplianceSanctionsLabor Code Section 5700Legal Services BureauCCPOA Benefit Trust Fund
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Claim of Salazar

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee's decision disqualifying him from unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. The core dispute involved the claimant's authorized return date after a leave, complicated by communication through an interpreter, Julio Garcia. The employer's representative, Joseph Lacullo, testified without personal knowledge, relying on hearsay. The court ruled that the claimant was denied a fair hearing because Garcia, the only person with direct knowledge of the leave authorization, was not compelled to testify despite the claimant's request. As a result, the record lacked probative and substantial evidence to support the finding of unauthorized absence. The decision was reversed, and the case remitted for further proceedings consistent with due process.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary LeavingGood CauseProvoked DischargeInterpreterLanguage BarrierDue ProcessFair HearingHearsay EvidenceWitness Testimony
References
1
Case No. ADJ7564894
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

FLOR DE MARIA DE LEON vs. PORTO'S BAKERY, INC, TRAVELERS

Here's a summary for a lawyer: This case involves a lien claimant, First Choice Health UBC, whose lien was dismissed for failure to provide proof of timely payment of the lien activation fee at a lien conference. While the claimant's representative appeared for "FCH" and later submitted proof of payment for a different, similarly named entity (First Choice Medical Group), no proof was provided for First Choice Health UBC itself. The WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, finding that the claimant failed to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4) by not presenting evidence of activation fee payment for the correct entity at the conference, thus warranting dismissal with prejudice. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition.

Lien ClaimantActivation FeePetition for ReconsiderationDismissal with PrejudiceContinuous TraumaServerBack InjuryKnee InjuryLower ExtremitiesNervous/Psyche
References
0
Case No. ADJ2303350 (FRE 0230817)
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

Benjamin Martinez vs. Boghossian Raisin Packing, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of notices to dismiss their liens, but the Appeals Board dismissed their petition as interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. The Board granted removal on its own motion and intends to sanction the lien claimants' representative, AMR Group, and the lien claimants themselves (Hooty Services and Accutox) for frivolous and bad-faith actions. This intent to sanction stems from their attempt to challenge a procedural order clearly permitted by Appeals Board rules.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsNotice of IntentionDismissalRemovalSanctionsLabor CodeFinal OrderInterlocutory Decisions
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Faello v. Federal Express

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that deemed his application for review untimely. The claimant initially sought compensation for a work-related injury, claiming assault by a security officer. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the incident non-compensable as it was not an assault. Claimant subsequently applied for Board review but failed to serve the self-insured employer, instead serving only its claims manager. The Board panel denied the application, citing a violation of 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a), which mandates service on all parties in interest. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s denial, concluding that service upon the employer’s representative was insufficient for the self-insured employer, who clearly held a manifest interest in the proceedings.

Timely FilingApplication for ReviewService RequirementsParties in InterestSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Panel DecisionCompensable Injury DenialAssault ClaimProcedural Due Process
References
1
Case No. ADJ3871531 (MON 0360998)
Regular
Jun 14, 2013

ALBA CORTEZ vs. FACILITIES SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., COMPWEST INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the dismissal of a lien claim filed by Wilshire Union Chiro Medical Group. The lien was dismissed because the claimant's representative failed to appear at a scheduled lien conference. While the claimant argued the absence was due to a representative's medical emergency, the Board found insufficient explanation for not sending another representative or notifying the court. Consequently, the Board imposed a $200 joint and several sanction on the lien claimant and its representative, Raul Mejia, for their failure to prosecute the lien and frivolous conduct.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationSanctionLien ConferenceFailure to AppearWCJDeclarations of Readiness to ProceedObjectionDismissal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,285 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