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. ADJ9122601 ADJ9122724
Regular
Mar 08, 2017

WENDY SHALVOY vs. WARNER BROTHERS HOME ENTERTAINMNET, INC.

The applicant claimed her employer violated Labor Code section 132a by withholding temporary disability benefits, which she believed led to differential treatment in a layoff. The WCJ initially issued a "take nothing" order on her entire application. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, finding the WCJ inadvertently applied the "take nothing" order to the wrong part of the applicant's claim. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant failed to prove a violation of section 132a, amending the order to specify she takes nothing regarding her petition for enhanced benefits under that section.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeTemporary Total DisabilitySeverance PackageDifferential TreatmentClerical ErrorPetition for Enhanced Benefits
References
1
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. ADJ9621441, ADJ9621182
Regular
Dec 07, 2016

PRISCO SOTELO vs. ASBESTOS INSTANT RESPONSE, INC., dba AIR DEMOLITION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the judge's order for further medical development was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the original order to obtain an Agreed Medical Evaluator's report. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ, with the defendant ordered to take nothing in one case and the other deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationFindings and OrderAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Industrial InjuryBack InjuryLabor Code Section 5701Petition for RemovalPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ9812433
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

HECTOR ORTIZ vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, dba TAKE CARE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Walgreens' petition for removal, which challenged an order to take the case off calendar for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) evaluation. The Board found that proceeding with the QME evaluation, which had been delayed due to clerical errors and physician availability, would not cause Walgreens irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and that developing the record through a QME is essential for the orderly resolution of the applicant's alleged industrial injuries.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorOff CalendarSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMedical UnitPanel RequestStrikeReplacement PanelDevelopment of the Record
References
2
Case No. ADJ4680045 (AHM 0090153)
Regular
Oct 14, 2008

Sean White vs. ALBERTSONS; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, S\&B Surgery Center, seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition because it was filed 39 days after the original order, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline. The amended order merely corrected a clerical error regarding defense counsel, and did not alter the original finding that the lien claimant take nothing.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyClerical errorAmended Findings and OrderWCJLabor CodeJurisdictionalOfficial Address RecordReport and Recommendation
References
3
Case No. ADJ4665750
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

MARTIN ROJAS vs. ANHEUSER BUSCH, CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

Here's a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the matter off calendar, claiming unspecified alterations were made to a signed Compromise and Release Agreement. The Board dismissed the petition, as reconsideration can only be sought for a final order, decision, or award. An order taking a matter off calendar is not a final order as it does not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The applicant may still raise issues regarding the unapproved Compromise and Release Agreement at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Release AgreementOrder taking off calendarFinal orderSubstantive rights and liabilitiesWCJ approvalTrial levelIn pro perChartis Claims Inc.
References
3
Case No. ADJ17382484
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

Benedo Alfaro Vasquez vs. Young's Commercial Transfer, National Interstate Insurance Company

The applicant, Benedo Alfaro Vasquez (deceased), sought reconsideration of a July 14, 2025 Findings and Order by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had found that the applicant's injury occurred during a normal commute and was not within the course of employment under the 'going and coming' rule, ordering that the applicant take nothing. The Appeals Board has granted the petition for reconsideration, deferring a final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record in light of applicable statutory and decisional law, to ensure a complete understanding and a just and reasoned decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGoing and Coming RulePetition for ReconsiderationInjury AOE/COESubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 3600Motor Vehicle AccidentCommercial Truck DriverTransmission of Case60-Day Rule
References
21
Case No. ADJ6892644
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

William Davis, III vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a firefighter, William Davis III, claiming cumulative trauma injury to his nervous and respiratory systems due to exposure to fire retardant. The applicant sought reconsideration of a "take nothing" order, arguing entitlement to a statutory presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.85. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the prior order, denying reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant failed to establish the applicability of the presumption because the fire retardant was not a "biochemical substance" as defined for weapons of mass destruction, and even if it were, the presumption was rebutted by the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion attributing the applicant's condition to an infectious process rather than occupational exposure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaFirefighterDepartment of Forestry and Fire ProtectionLabor Code Section 3212.85Presumption of Industrial CausationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Dr. Robert HarrisonToxic Exposure
References
0
Case No. ADJ4569342 (ANA358543)
Regular
Jul 09, 2010

ROSALIA SANDOVAL vs. UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior order finding that lien claims for medical services by Dr. Akbarpour and Holt Chiropractic were reimbursable. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's report established the services were not medically reasonable or necessary for the applicant's industrial injury. Additionally, the claimed amounts were deemed excessive and unsubstantiated by the lien claimants. Therefore, the Board ordered that the lien claimants take nothing by way of their claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerMedical Treatment ReasonablenessMedical Treatment NecessityLien ClaimantsDiagnostic TestingChiropractic ServicesExcessive FeesIndustrial Injury
References
13
Case No. ADJ11113127
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a previous decision. The Board's amended order dictates that the applicant will receive nothing from his claim. This decision affirms the original findings of fact, which determined the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his right leg and foot as cumulative trauma. The Board found that while the judge's dismissal was in error, the correct disposition is for the applicant to take nothing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderApplicant take nothingIndustrial injuryCumulative traumaRight legRight footBiasPrejudice
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 24,192 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