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. ADJ8418853
Regular
Oct 22, 2013

ANA ORELLANA vs. AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC., C.N.A.; administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order regarding a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) selection. The Board also denied the Defendant's request for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Defendant argued the Applicant should be re-evaluated by the same QME from a prior, unrepresented claim, but the Board adopted the Judge's reasoning that the Applicant, now represented, is entitled to a new QME panel for the distinct, current claim. The Board determined the distinction between represented and unrepresented employee QME procedures supported the entitlement to a new panel, overriding the Defendant's argument for re-evaluation by the prior QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmCumulative TraumaPanel QMEUnrepresented Employee
References
12
Case No. ADJ3953416
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

CLENNON MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order vacating a trial date. The Board also denied the defendant's petition to remove the applicant's non-attorney representative, Danny Boyd, from appearing, despite Boyd's history of abusive conduct. However, the Board issued a stern warning to Boyd that future misconduct will result in proceedings to remove his privilege to represent parties. The Board noted Boyd's potential violation of paralegal regulations and advised him to ensure compliance.

WCABPetition for RemovalHearing RepresentativeLabor Code Section 4907Cease and Desist OrderAbusive ConductNon-attorney RepresentativeSB 899Labor Code Section 5814Medical Mileage
References
3
Case No. 772 F.Supp. 1412
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. New York

Defendant Crosson moved for an order clarifying an August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment, which implemented a Second Circuit mandate declaring New York's lag-payroll law unconstitutional. Crosson argued that the Judgment enjoined the law's application to both unrepresented and represented employees, while State Defendants maintained it covered only represented employees. The Court acknowledged the Second Circuit's focus on represented employees due to contractual impairment but clarified its own Order and Judgment to include all employees, finding the lag-payroll statute non-severable. The Court reasoned that severing the statute to apply only to unrepresented employees would significantly alter the original legislative intent, reducing the expected savings by 90%. Consequently, the Court granted Crosson's motion, clarifying that the August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment applies to both unrepresented and represented employees.

Lag Payroll LawContract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionSecond Circuit MandateDeclaratory JudgmentRestitution of WagesSeverability of StatuteLegislative IntentUnrepresented EmployeesRepresented Employees
References
11
Case No. ADJ7096210
Regular
Apr 11, 2011

ROBERTO GONZALEZ vs. JERRY'S FAMOUS DELI, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, which contained false factual assertions regarding a prior conference. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,500 each against Hearing Representative Lance Garrett and Attorney Carl Feldman for their bad-faith actions. The Board also ordered Attorney Feldman to identify the representative who appeared at the January 26, 2011 conference.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder To Suspend ProceedingCompel Medical ExaminationPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Hearing RepresentativeSanctionsFrivolous PetitionBad Faith Actions
References
1
Case No. ADJ11139513
Regular
Jul 23, 2018

TEMPE EVERSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CTF SOLEDAD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the proper Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel selection after an applicant became represented by an attorney. Initially unrepresented, applicant received QME panel #2194142, but no evaluation occurred before she retained counsel. A new panel, #2200955, was issued for represented cases, from which applicant timely struck a physician. However, the defendant's strike from this second panel was found to be untimely. The Appeals Board granted removal, amended the prior order, and directed the parties to proceed with an evaluation by Dr. Scheinbaum from the second panel, deeming it the appropriate one.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panelrepresented vs. unrepresentedtimely strikeRomero v. CostcoLabor Code section 4062.1Labor Code section 4062.2Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Razo v. Las Posas Country Clubcomprehensive medical-legal evaluation
References
3
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. ADJ2912747 (AHM 0106971)
Regular
May 23, 2014

JOSE MANUEL OCHOA vs. CHECKMATE STAFFING, ZENITH INSURANCE, FRONTIER MEDICAL, INC., N-CARE, LLC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimants Frontier Medical and N-Care, reversing a prior dismissal. The liens were dismissed because their representative, Pinnacle Lien Services, failed to file required letters of representation under Labor Code section 4903.6(b), rendering them unrepresented. Despite Pinnacle's claims of appearance and objection, the Board affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the representation letter for a hearing representative to act. Jurisdiction is reserved for potential sanctions against Pinnacle, Frontier, and N-Care.

Pinnacle Lien ServicesFrontier MedicalN-CareWCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensLabor Code section 4903.6(b)Hearing RepresentativeLetter of RepresentationLien Conference
References
0
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days, citing a pattern of bad-faith tactics, frivolous actions, and repeated failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionWCAB en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentRepeated misconduct
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 17,750 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