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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ994369
Regular
Jan 19, 2014

JOSE JUAREZ vs. WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering a decision that awarded the applicant medical mileage and a penalty for unreasonable delay in compensation payments but denied attorney's fees. The WCAB believes attorney's fees are warranted under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the payment of awarded compensation. The case is being returned to the trial level for the judge to determine and award these attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Mileage Expense ReimbursementAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814.5Cumulative Industrial InjuryPulmonary System Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ3590276 (SJO 0195595)
Regular
Mar 05, 2009

LISA TORRES vs. SAFEWAY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding Safeway, Inc. liable for $\$ 856.80$ in unpaid medical treatment by lien claimant José Reynoso, D.C. Safeway argued the lien was untimely filed, asserting Labor Code section 4904 only applies to EDD liens. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that section 4904 is not limited to EDD liens and that sections 4903.5 and 4904 are not inconsistent. Consequently, Safeway's petition for reconsideration was denied, and the original award was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSafewayInc.Retail ClerkIndustrial InjuryLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.5Labor Code Section 4904Findings Award and OrderPenalty and Interest
References
0
Case No. ADJ10553459
Regular
Feb 23, 2018

JAMES CRAIG SILLERS vs. CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, MUNICIPAL POOLING AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 47% permanent disability benefits to applicant James Sillers. The central dispute concerned whether Sillers was entitled to the maximum disability indemnity rate under Labor Code section 4458.5. The Board majority held that Sillers, a retired police officer with orthopedic injuries, qualified for the maximum rate, interpreting section 4458.5 to apply to any public safety member injured within the timeframes specified in listed presumption statutes, not solely to injuries covered by those specific presumptions. A dissenting opinion argued that only injuries falling under the explicitly enumerated presumptions in section 4458.5 qualified for the maximum rate, citing precedent that non-listed presumptions, like cancer under section 3212.1, did not grant this benefit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Pleasant HillMunicipal Pooling AuthorityCumulative Trauma InjuryCervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral Cubital TunnelsPolice OfficerStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4458.5
References
4
Case No. ADJ11035614
Regular
Feb 07, 2020

EDELIA CARDONA vs. VALJEN, INC. DBA CAESARS PIZZA, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION

In this case, the applicant sought reconsideration after the WCJ denied attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5814.5. The applicant's attorney incurred fees attempting to collect a previously awarded attorney's fee that the defendant unreasonably delayed paying. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding Section 5814.5 applicable in this scenario, as established by precedent in *Turner*. The matter was returned to the trial level to further develop the record on sanctions under Sections 5813, 5814, and 5814.5.

Labor Code sections 581358145814.5attorney's feesunreasonable delaybad faithstipulated attorney's feePetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationcase of first impression
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
9
Case No. SFO 0453338
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

WILLIAM HANSEN vs. STEINY & COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a lien claimant, Recovery Resources, Inc., seeking reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied their lien. The WCJ found the lien was filed outside the statutory time limits under Labor Code section 4903.5. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902, and the lien claimant failed to correct this deficiency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 4903.5unverified petitionlack of verificationLabor Code section 5902WCJ
References
2
Case No. ADJ1338407; (LBO 340803) ADJ4574334; (LBO 340804) ADJ3948688; (LBO 340805)
Regular
Oct 01, 2008

OSVALDO TRASVINA vs. DUTKO HARWOOD FLOORS, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY, GAB ROBINS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's disallowance of Farwest Diagnostics' $\$ 2,969.00$ lien claim. The Board found the lien was time-barred under Labor Code Section 4903.5 as it was filed significantly after the compromise and release approval and outside the statutory time limits. Furthermore, the lien claimant failed to prove they served their claim notice on the defendant insurer or employer in 2003 as required for tolling or application of Section 4904(a).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4903.5Time BarredCompromise and ReleaseTollingNotice of ClaimMedical TreatmentMedical-Legal Services
References
3
Case No. ADJ2089759 (FRE 0209611)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

Alma Pena vs. HYE CUISINE, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Summit Surgical Center (SSC) and rescinded the imposed $\$2,000.00$ sanction, finding SSC was not provided adequate notice of the basis for the sanction under Labor Code section 5813. However, the Board affirmed the decision that SSC's lien claim was untimely filed under Labor Code section 4903.5, as it was filed more than five years after the injury and nearly four years after the settlement approval, and the partial payment did not toll the statute of limitations. Therefore, SSC will take nothing further on its lien claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code sections 4903.559045813California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10561Fees and costsSummit Surgical Center
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,774 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