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. SDO 0238430
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

GILBERT VALADEZ vs. COFFMAN SPECIALTIES, CALIFORNIA GUARANTEE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, BROADSPIRE, CRAWFORD COMPANY, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the previous denial of the applicant's Petition for New and Further Disability. The WCJ erred by focusing on the applicant's motivation to work rather than his actual ability to compete in the open labor market. The case is returned for further proceedings to address the applicant's claim of permanent total disability based on unrebutted vocational expert testimony.

Petition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityPetition to ReopenPermanently Totally DisabledLeBoeuf analysisopen labor marketvocational rehabilitationdiminished ability to competeunrebutted expert testimonysubstantial evidence
References
3
Case No. ANA 0403219
Regular
May 15, 2008

PHILLIP EVANS vs. COAST GENERAL TIRE, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant's injury presumed compensable under Labor Code section 5402 due to the employer's untimely denial and failure to provide a claim form. The applicant's unrebutted testimony establishes the industrial nature of the fall and injury. However, the nature and extent of the injury require further medical evaluation through the panel QME process.

Labor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityequitable estoppelclaim formuntimely denialpanel QMEmedical-legal evaluationindustrial injuryStatute of Limitationsfindings and order
References
3
Case No. SJO 0230368 SJO 0230369
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

John Anzevino vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant eligible for Subsequent Injuries Fund (SIBF) benefits. The Board determined that the applicant's credible, unrebutted testimony regarding his pre-existing left upper extremity limitations constituted substantial evidence of an "impairment" affecting that limb. Consequently, the case was returned for further proceedings to establish the extent of SIBF benefits.

Subsequent Injuries FundLabor Code section 4751Petition for ReconsiderationPre-existing disabilityLabor disabling conditionLeft upper extremityUnrebutted testimonyMedical evidenceOpposing memberSignificant impairment
References
3
Case No. ADJ14871067
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

EDGAR GAMA vs. XTRACTOR DEPOT, LLC, 2020 LONG BEACH, LLC, THE HARTFORD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the applicant was an employee of Xtractor Depot, LLC. The Board gave significant weight to the judge's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it. The Board also noted the petitioner's improper attachment of exhibits to their petition. Ultimately, the applicant's credible testimony and unrebutted exhibits supported the original finding of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsideration DeniedWCJ Credibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Ostensible AuthorityEmployee StatusXtractor Depot LLCAndrew YoonCannabis IndustryWarehouse Explosion
References
4
Case No. ADJ7784334
Regular
Jul 17, 2013

ESTEBAN ESCOBAR vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's finding of no industrial injury. The Board found that the applicant sustained a cumulative injury to his right upper extremity, supported by the unrebutted medical opinion of a Qualified Medical Examiner. Compensation is not barred by the post-termination defense as the date of injury, per Labor Code Section 5412, occurred after the applicant's termination date. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Post-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Section 5412Cumulative injuryRight upper extremityIndustrial injuryPQMEKenneth ScheffelsM.D.Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ1642575 (MON 0336492)
Regular
Mar 23, 2009

JUAN JOSE AYALA vs. GUILLERMO DUENAS, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous finding that his claim was barred. The Board found the applicant was an employee of the defendant under Labor Code section 3357, based on unrebutted testimony of an agreement for landscaping services at $80 per day across multiple jobs. The defendant failed to overcome the statutory presumption of employment. Therefore, the applicant is found to have been employed by the defendant at the time of his alleged injury.

Labor Code section 3352(h)Labor Code section 3357Labor Code section 3351(d)WCJPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factrescindedemployment statuspresumption of employmentlandscaper
References
3
Case No. ADJ7143823 ADJ6592090
Regular
Jul 11, 2013

ATRELL GUYE (Deceased) vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Legally Uninsured, Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding death benefits for Atrell Guye. The petitioner argued the WCAB erred by including car payments in the calculation of partial dependency benefits for dependent Maisha Douglas. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding the dependent's testimony credible and unrebutted regarding the car payments. The WCAB also admonished defense counsel for referencing an inadmissible deposition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJdeath benefitspartial dependentMaisha DouglasBrenetta Sparksadministrative law judgedepositionCal. Code Regs.
References
0
Case No. ADJ7775170
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

JUANA NEGRETE vs. SHURFLO, HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's workers' compensation claim filed after layoff, triggering Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant met her burden of proof that she notified her employer of her injury prior to her layoff. The applicant's unrebutted testimony and supporting medical evidence demonstrated employer notice, thus overcoming the statutory bar to compensation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJuana NegreteShurfloHampshire Insurance CompanyADJ7775170Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationbilateral armsbilateral elbowssleep problems
References
4
Case No. ADJ10075517
Regular
Dec 15, 2017

PAUL ROYCE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Legally Uninsured

The WCAB granted reconsideration of a decision denying a workers' compensation claim for respiratory issues. While the sole medical expert found the aspergillosis to be industrial, the judge deemed the opinion lacking substantial evidence due to vagueness. The Board found it unjust to penalize the applicant with a "take nothing" order when the opinion, though flawed, was unrebutted. Therefore, the case is remanded for further medical development, potentially with an expert more specialized in aspergillosis, to ensure substantial justice and a complete record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryAspergillosisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseMedical EvidenceIndustrial CausationFurther Development of RecordAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 5701
References
5
Case No. ADJ7611909 ADJ8870925
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

ANTONIA RIVAS vs. EL PRADO RESTAURANT, THE COHEN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board reversed the prior decision, allowing lien claimant Preferred Scan's exhibits into evidence. Applying the en banc decision in *Cornejo*, the Board found that Preferred Scan made an unrebutted prima facie showing of exemption from Business and Professions Code registration requirements. This exemption applies because Preferred Scan acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. The case is returned for a new decision on the lien claim.

Preferred ScanRivas v. El Prado RestaurantADJ7611909ADJ8870925WCABReconsiderationBusiness and Professions Code 22450Business and Professions Code 22451(b)Cornejo v. Younique CaféInc.
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 43 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