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. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
6
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182)
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding Milton Guzman sustained an industrial psychological injury. The defendant, Zurich North America, argued the applicant did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board will allow supplemental briefing on whether the applicant met the six-month employment duration requirement for psychiatric claims, as this issue was not fully decided by the WCJ. The decision will address this specific issue before issuing a final ruling.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix month employment requirementindustrial injuryFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationsupplemental briefingWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ5761209
Regular
Sep 20, 2010

RICHARD PADGETT vs. AON CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE/XCHANGING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant Aon Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's findings. This decision was made to allow for a more thorough review of the case's factual and legal issues. Additionally, the WCAB granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental brief within 15 days. All future correspondence regarding this case should be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

ADJ5761209Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactSupplemental BriefAppeals Board Rule 10848Decision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners
References
0
Case No. ADJ9355637
Regular
Apr 21, 2017

JESUS TORRES vs. GREENBRAE MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's request to file supplemental briefing regarding his psychiatric injury. The applicant seeks reconsideration of an award that excluded permanent disability from his psychiatric injury, arguing it was a direct result of his physical injury, not a consequence, and that his case qualifies as a "catastrophic injury" or involved a violent act. The Board is allowing the defendant ten days to respond to this new argument, which was not previously addressed at trial. This procedural step aims to ensure due process and full consideration of the applicant's claims.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilitycatastrophic injuryLabor Code section 4660.1psychiatric injuryMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman)supplemental briefingviolent act
References
2
Case No. ADJ4039795
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

Errol Holmes vs. SHELL OIL COMPANY, ESIS/EMPLOYERS SELF-INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant's attorney sought additional fees for opposing Shell Oil's writ of review, which the Court of Appeal granted, remanding for supplemental fees. The Appeals Board initially awarded $3,000 based on estimated hours and a reasonable rate after no response was received to a request for itemized fees. The applicant's attorney then claimed he did not receive the request and sought $5,751.57 in fees. Despite treating his letter as a reconsideration petition, the Appeals Board reviewed the matter again and reaffirmed the $3,000 award, finding it adequate and denying any additional compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardErrol HolmesShell Oil CompanyESISEmployers Self-Insurance ServicesPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 5902
References
0
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1971

Claim of Wippert v. Peele Bros.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which ruled that a claimant widow was entitled to supplemental benefits without deducting social security benefits received from her own earnings. The employer and insurance carrier appealed this decision. The central issue was whether social security benefits, regardless of their source, should be offset against supplemental benefits under subdivision 9 of section 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The court found that the statute's language explicitly requires such an offset, irrespective of the social security benefits' originating source. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's determination, remitting the matter for recalculation of the supplemental benefit.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security OffsetSupplemental AllowancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionBenefit ReductionLegislative HistoryClaimant WidowPublic PolicyBenefit Calculation
References
1
Case No. ADJ3674520
Regular
Mar 29, 2012

Linda Elachkar vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Chartis Insurance Services

This case involves supplemental attorney's fees awarded under Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review in *Northrup Grumman Corporation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, finding no reasonable basis for the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to award supplemental attorney's fees to the applicant, Linda Elachkar. The parties stipulated to a fee of $4,812.50, which the Board found to be reasonable.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable BasisRemandAppeals BoardStipulationAttorney's FeeNorthrop Grumman CorporationChartis Insurance Services
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,353 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