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. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ9625407
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

KEITH FIELD vs. CITY OF PINOLE

This case involves a firefighter who sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome after retirement. The Appeals Board reversed the trial judge, holding that Labor Code section 4458.5 applies, entitling the applicant to permanent disability benefits calculated at the maximum indemnity rate. This applies regardless of the applicant's actual earnings or the fact that carpal tunnel syndrome is not a specifically enumerated presumptive injury. The case is remanded for determination of the precise date of injury to calculate the benefit rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith FieldCity of PinolePermissibly Self-InsuredMunicipal Pooling AuthorityADJ9625407Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryfirefighterbilateral upper extremities
References
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
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. ADJ2353136 (STK 0213635)
Regular
Dec 19, 2016

AHMED SHOAIB vs. CAMBELL SOUP COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the payment of a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant, Ahmed Shoaib, settled a discrimination claim against Campbell Soup Company for $55,000. Campbell Soup unilaterally withheld over $19,000 from the applicant's share of the settlement for alleged payroll taxes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Campbell Soup's petition for reconsideration, finding that the company unreasonably delayed payment by taking a unilateral credit. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and the awarded 25% penalty for the delayed payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and AwardLabor Code Section 132aAmended Petition for PenaltyDelayed PaymentLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Contract EnforcementUnilateral Credit
References
Case No. ADJ3806562 (GRO 0033169) ADJ8194254
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

MARK VAN DYK vs. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, but affirmed the WCJ's finding that the lien claimant CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund (CCPOA) was not entitled to interest, penalties, costs, or attorney's fees. CCPOA sought these remedies due to alleged late payment of its lien by the defendant. The Board determined that Labor Code sections 5800 and 5814 penalties are payable only to injured employees, not lien claimants, and found no evidence of bad faith or frivolous delay by the defendant to warrant sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantCCPOA Benefit Trust FundLabor Code Section 5800Labor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesInterest
References
Case No. ANA 0393385
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

JERRY MADRID vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior award. The Board found that applicant's claims for penalties under Labor Code section 5814 were barred by subdivision (c) because penalties accrued prior to settlement and were not expressly excluded. Consequently, the Board also denied a section 5813 attorney fee, as there was no finding of bad faith.

Labor Code section 5814unreasonable delaypenaltymedical treatmentlien claimantStipulations With Request for AwardLabor Code section 5813attorney feestreating physicianpre-designation
References
Case No. ADJ3724129 (VNO 0414129) ADJ1154072 (VNO 0414130)
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

William Young vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied William Young's petition for reconsideration, upholding a judge's decision to deny penalties for the City of Los Angeles' delay in authorizing spinal surgery. The Board agreed that Labor Code section 5814(c) barred the penalty claim due to applicant's failure to properly preserve the issue. While a concurring opinion found the defendant's 32-month delay and failure to comply with statutory obligations sanctionable under Labor Code section 5813, the majority denied reconsideration. Therefore, the applicant's request for sanctions and attorney fees was ultimately unsuccessful.

Labor Code section 5814(c)unreasonable delayspinal surgerypenaltyLabor Code section 5813attorney feesLabor Code section 5814.5Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ1688300 (OAK 0321767)
Regular
Jul 27, 2015

DEBBIE PARR (Dec'd) vs. LA XPRESS ASSEMBLY AND DISTRIBUTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a deceased applicant's petitions for sanctions and attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5813 survive their death. The defendant argued these claims were barred by the statute of limitations (section 5405), which limits the time for collecting benefits. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that sanctions under section 5813 are not "benefits" and therefore not subject to section 5405. Accordingly, the applicant's petitions for sanctions and attorney's fees do survive their death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJLabor Code section 5814PenaltiesLabor Code section 5813SanctionsAttorney's Fees
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,078 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