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. ADJ7618189
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

RUBEN OROZCO vs. EXACT STAFF, INC.; TOWER/NSM INSUREX, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case involves lien claimants Anderson Chiropractic and Santana Lopez seeking reconsideration of an order disallowing their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a crucial exhibit, Exhibit 6, was incomplete in the record. Lien claimants are ordered to file a complete copy of Exhibit 6 within 10 days to allow the Board to properly review the case. This action is necessary for the Board to study the facts and applicable law concerning the disallowed liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantsFindings and OrdersDisallowed liensExhibit 6Administrative law judgeWCJSupplemental pleadingSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. ADJ16131890
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

VERONICA JIMENEZ vs. ABM INDUSTRIES, ESIS CHATSWORTH

The applicant, Veronica Jimenez, sought reconsideration of a June 20, 2025 Findings of Fact and Award which found injuries to several body parts but not to the psyche or insomnia. Applicant contended that the QME report was not substantial medical evidence, proposed exhibits were excluded, and a sub rosa video should be stricken. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to rescind the arbitrator's decision, citing issues with the completeness of the arbitration record and due process concerns.

Carve-out casesPetition for reconsiderationSubstantial medical evidenceSub rosa videoAuthenticationReport on reconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLabor Code section 5909TimelinessNotice of transmission
References
9
Case No. ADJ394613 (VNO 0530712) ADJ2266356 (VNO 0530710)
Regular
Apr 01, 2016

MARIA ESTRELLA vs. NATIONAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal to a lien claimant after a judge excluded four exhibits. The WCAB found that two of the excluded exhibits, representing certifications and financial interest notifications, were sufficiently listed on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement. Therefore, the WCAB admitted these two exhibits into evidence, amending the judge's prior order. The remainder of the judge's order, excluding the other two exhibits, was affirmed.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJExhibitsPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPre-Trial Conference StatementServiceNotification of Certification
References
1
Case No. TI11981166
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

JOHNNIE MANDONADO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the previous decision to allow further proceedings. The WCAB found that the trial judge erred by excluding applicant's Exhibit No. 1 without allowing the opportunity to provide required declarations. The WCAB also found the agreed vocational expert's report could not be definitively deemed insubstantial evidence and ordered development of the record regarding its admissibility. Finally, the testimony of defense counsel as a witness at trial was stricken due to ethical concerns and lack of necessity.

Sub rosaVocational expert reportPrimary treating physicianQualified medical evaluatorNeuropsychological QMEDermatological QMEOrthopedic QMEPermanent impairmentWhole person impairmentAdmissibility of evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ9975590; ADJ9976116
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

Ana Nieto vs. Avitus, Inc., American Zurich Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the appealed order was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB treated the petition as one for removal and denied it, as the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's contention that their trial exhibits and an orthopedic QME panel were erroneously stricken was rejected, as was their claim that the orthopedic QME panel was improperly denied. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their request for an orthopedic QME panel over a chiropractic one.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings of Fact & OrdersQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Orthopedic Surgery QMEChiropractic QMETrial ExhibitsAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Labor Code § 4062.2
References
6
Case No. ADJ1856849
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

ROGELIO MERLOS vs. AJ SLENDERS DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) notice indicates they are reconsidering a prior ruling that excluded defendant's exhibits A through M as irrelevant. The WCAB believes these exhibits may be relevant to the issues presented at trial. Absent timely written objection demonstrating good cause, these exhibits will be admitted into evidence. This decision will inform the final determination on the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationExhibits A through MWCJNotice of Intention to Admit EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeGood CauseWritten ObjectionDemonstration of Good CauseService of Notice
References
0
Case No. ADJ8583264, ADJ8583294
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

MARICELA MACEDO vs. KINGSBURG APPLE PACKERS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition to disqualify the judge. The claimant alleged bias based on the judge's statements regarding late-filed exhibits and a violation of due process for not admitting their trial exhibits. The Board found no evidence of an unqualified opinion or enmity sufficient for disqualification. Furthermore, the issue of exhibit admissibility was deemed premature as the judge had not yet made a decision.

Lien claimantDisqualificationWCJDue processTrial exhibitsPre-trial ordersEx parte communicationPetition for reconsiderationOrder vacating submissionLabor Code section 4622
References
0
Case No. ADJ9149274
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

JACQUELINE BOWLER vs. AC TRANSIT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision grants reconsideration to admit defense Exhibit A into evidence. The applicant argued the temporary disability rate was too low and that the WCJ failed to rule on Exhibit A's admissibility. The Board affirmed the WCJ's award of $700.00 per week for temporary disability, finding it consistent with the applicant's earnings at the time of injury, but overruled the objection to Exhibit A. The Board also ordered reimbursement to the EDD for benefits paid.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Disability Indemnity RateLabor Code section 4661.5Average Weekly WageExhibit A admissibilityPetition for Attorney's FeesWCJ ReportDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ7159838 ADJ7550047
Regular
Jul 29, 2014

ALMA PELAYO vs. ASSOCIATED LIEN SERVICES

Applicant Alma Pelayo sought reconsideration of a prior decision that found no violation of Labor Code section 132(a) and ordered her to take nothing further. Pelayo argued the judge erred in this finding and in failing to rule on the admissibility of her Exhibit 15. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit Pelayo's Exhibit 15 and defendant's Exhibits A1, A2, and A3. The Board otherwise affirmed the original decision, meaning Pelayo still takes nothing further.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132(a)Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJApplicant's Exhibit 15Defendant's Exhibits A1A2A3admissible evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ2519091 (LAO 0824930) ADJ4160066 (LAO 0824931) ADJ188382 (LAO 0828971)
Regular
Aug 18, 1941

MARIA MARXUACH vs. WESTIN BONAVENTURE HOTEL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in this case, upholding the judge's decision. Discovery closed by operation of law on September 12, 2007, and the applicant's attorneys failed to demonstrate due diligence in listing crucial medical reports as exhibits prior to this closure. Despite numerous continuances and attempts to amend the exhibit list, discovery was never formally reopened. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the applicant did not establish why the exhibits could not have been presented with reasonable diligence before discovery closed.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePre-trial conference statementdiscovery closureadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationreopen discoverydue diligenceexhibition listWCJ reportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 297 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