Significant panel decisions
En Banc decisions | Significant panel decisions | Cases pending on appellate grants | Panel decisions | DisclaimerTo view decisions, click on the PDF name of the decision (to the left of the date) and you will access the PDF file which contains the decision. Use of the California Compensation Cases citation is used for the community's information and convenience only with a recognition that the text and/or summary of the decisions may also appear in other publications.
2024 significant panel decisions
| Latrice Reed vs. County of San Bernardino, permissibly self-insured, self-administered |
November 5, 2024 | 2024-SPD-2 |
| Case No. ADJ18725678 | ||
| 89 Cal. Comp. Cases | ||
| On November 5, 2024, the Appeals Board issued its opinion in Latrice Reed, ADJ18725678, and designated it as a significant panel. In Latrice Reed, the Appeals Board clarified that an order taking a matter off calendar is not a final order for purposes of seeking reconsideration as it is an order affecting trial setting, which is only subject to removal. The Appeals Board noted that sanctions may be appropriate where parties file petitions for reconsideration from non-final orders. The Appeals Board declined to take up the issue of sanctions as it did not appear that the petitions were filed for an improper purpose (e.g. delay of trial), but instead admonished applicant’s attorney that such conduct should not recur. | ||
| Sandra Ja’Chim Scheuing vs. Livermore National Laboratory, permissibly self-insured, administered by Gallagher Bassett |
March 27, 2024 | 2024-SPD-1 |
| Case No. ADJ8655364; ADJ14830172 | ||
| 89 Cal. Comp. Cases | ||
On March 27, 2024, the Appeals Board issued its opinion in Sandra Ja’Chim Scheuing ADJ8655364; ADJ14830172, and designated it as a significant panel. In Ja’Chim Scheuing, the Appeals Board discussed its approach to cases where a petition for reconsideration is timely filed, but the case is not timely received by the Appeals Board, and clarified that the Appeals Board will continue to follow the long-time precedent in Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493]. |
||
2021 significant panel decisions
| LIMIN GAO vs. CHEVRON CORPORATION, self-insured and administered by BROADSPIRE |
January 12, 2021 | 2021-SPD-1 |
| Case No. ADJ10024232 | ||
| 86 Cal. Comp. Cases | ||
On January 12, 2021, the Appeals Board issued a significant panel decision addressing the appropriateness of remote hearing procedures for trials occurring during the Covid-19 pandemic.The Appeals Board determined that the applicant’s due process rights were violated when a continuance to allow for in-person testimony was granted without affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The Appeals Board provided guidance that, in light of Executive Order N-63-20 and the purposes of the workers’ compensation system, trials should proceed remotely unless there is some clear reason why the facts of a specific case require a continuance. |
||
2019 significant panel decisions
| Puni Pa’u vs. Department of Forestry/Cal Fire, legally uninsured and adjusted by State Compensation Insurance Fund |
September 11, 2019 | 2019-SPD-2 |
| Case No. ADJ9159725, ADJ7757931, ADJ9640668 | ||
| 84 Cal. Comp. Cases | ||
| On September 11, 2019, the Appeals Board issued a significant panel decision clarifying that Saturday is not a “working day” for purposes of Labor Code section 4610(i)(1), which generally requires that Utilization Review decisions be reached within five “working days” of receipt of a request for authorization for medical treatment. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Appeals Board determined that the phrase “working day” as it appears in Labor Code section 4610 does not include Saturdays based upon its standard modern usage, as reflected in dictionary definitions, statutory and regulatory enactments, and judicial decisions. Additionally, the Appeals Board noted that even if Saturday were a working day, the UR decisions in question would have been timely based upon Code of Civil Procedure section 12a, which extends the deadline for performance of acts that fall due on a Saturday. | ||
| Ana Villanueva vs. Teva Foods; Travelers Insurance Company |
March 8, 2019 | 2019-SPD-1 |
| Case No. ADJ9332041 | ||
| 84 Cal. Comp. | ||
| On March 8, 2019, the Appeals Board issued a significant panel decision clarifying the definition of “controlled” in Labor Code section 139(a)(1)(A) in order to determine whether Firstline Health, Inc., was “controlled” by Munir Uwaydah, M.D., who has been suspended by the Department of Industrial Relations due to his criminal indictment for criminal conspiracy to commit workers’ compensation insurance fraud. Section 4615(a) requires that in order for the lien of an entity to be subject to an automatic stay upon the filing of criminal charges as described in Labor Code section 139(a)(1)(A), the entity must be “controlled” by a physician, practitioner or provider charged with such a crime. Pursuant to Labor Code section 139(a)(3), an entity is “controlled” by a physician, practitioner or provider charged with a crime as defined in section 139(a)(1)(A) if that physician, practitioner or provider “is an officer or a director of the entity, or a shareholder with a 10 percent or greater interest in the entity.” The Appeals Board clarified that the necessary control as defined in Labor Code section 139(a)(3) may be established with admissible evidence that the physician, practitioner or provider is or was an “officer or a director” of the entity; is or was “a shareholder with a 10 percent or greater interest” in the entity; has or does hold de facto ownership of the entity; or, has or does exercise de facto control consistent with the rights and duties of an officer or director of the entity. | ||
2014 significant panel decisions
| Timothy Bodam vs. San Bernardino County/ Department of Social Services legally uninsured |
November 20, 2014 | 2014-SPD-4 |
| Case No. ADJ8120989 (SBR 0041910) | ||
| 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 1519 | ||
| In affirming the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s finding that defendant’s Utilization Review (UR) decision was not timely communicated to the requesting physician and the employee as required by Labor Code section 4610(g)(3)(A) and Administrative Director’s Rule 9792.9.1(e)(3), the Appeals Board held: (1) A defendant is obligated to comply with all time requirements in conducting a UR, including the timeframes for communicating the UR decision; (2) A UR decision that is timely made but is not timely communicated is untimely; (3) When a UR decision is untimely and, therefore, invalid, the necessity of the medical treatment at issue may be determined by the WCAB based upon substantial evidence. | ||
| Christopher Torres vs. Contra Costa Schools Insurance Group; State Compensation Insurance Fund |
August 28, 2014 | 2014-SPD-3 |
| Case No. ADJ3011154 (SAC 0309784) - ADJ3631113 (SAC 0309785) | ||
| 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 1181 | ||
| Where the injured worker filed an unverified petition appealing an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination, the Appeals Board held that the petition is subject to dismissal because Labor Code section 4610.6(h) provides that such a determination “may be reviewed only by a verified appeal.” Further, Rule 10450(e) requires that any petition filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board “shall be verified under penalty of perjury in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record,” and it provides that a non-verified petition may be summarily dismissed or denied. While lack of verification does not automatically require dismissal of an unverified petition, an appeal may be dismissed for lack of verification if the appealing party does not within a reasonable time cure the defect after receiving notice of the defect. | ||
| Jennifer Patterson vs. The Oaks Farm; California Insurance Guarantee Association for California Compensation Insurance Company, in liquidation |
July 24, 2014 | 2014-SPD-2 |
| Case No. ADJ3905924 (ANA 0339374) | ||
| 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 910 | ||
Where the defendant had unilaterally terminated nurse case manager services to the injured worker, the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ’s award reinstating those services, holding as follows:
|
||
| Eun Jae Kim vs. B.C.D. Tofu House, Inc.; Cypress Insurance Company, et. all |
February 7, 2014 | 2014-SPD-1 |
| Case No. ADJ9086333 | ||
| 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 140 | ||
| The Appeals Board held that without regard to Court Administrator Rule 10252, which limits expedited hearings to specific issues in accepted claims, an expedited hearing may be requested and conducted under Labor Code section 5502(b)(2) and Administrative Director Rule 9767.6(c) to determine whether the employee must treat in the employer's medical provider network during the 90-day delay period, under Labor Code section 5402(b), that the employer has to investigate and determine whether to accept or reject the claim. | ||
2013 significant panel decisions
| Maria Elena Mendez vs. Le Chef Bakery; Pacific Compensation Insurance Co |
April 25, 2013 | 2013-SPD-2 |
| Case No. ADJ6509620 ADJ6509621 | ||
| 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 454 | ||
| The Appeals Board panel held that under Labor Code section 4903.06, a lien claimant is not required to pay a lien activation fee prior to a 2013 lien trial where: (1) the declaration of readiness (DOR) is filed prior to January 1, 2013; (2) the lien conference takes place prior to January 1, 2013; and (3) the lien trial takes place in 2013, without any intervening 2013 lien conference. | ||
| Eliezer Figueroa vs. B.C. Doering Co.: Employers Compensation Insurance Co. |
April 5, 2013 | 2013-SPD-1 |
| Case No. ADJ3274228 (AHM 0120365) | ||
| 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 336 | ||
The Appeals Board panel held that, where a lien claim falls within the lien activation fee requirements of section 4903.06:
|
||
2011 significant panel decisions
| Jose H. Hernandez vs. AMS Staff Leasing |
April 11, 2011 | 2011-SPD-1 |
| Case No. ADJ2182149 (LAO 0837423) ADJ3329537 (ANA 0360928) |
||
| 76 Cal. Comp.Cases 343 | ||
| The Appeals Board panel determined that when a paper file, an electronic file in EAMS, or a combined paper and electronic file is sent to the Appeals Board after the filing of a petition for reconsideration, removal, or disqualification, (1) there must be a complete and properly organized record which includes all documents admitted in evidence, (2) it is the responsibility of the WCJ to ensure that all documents in the record are scanned into EAMS, or at least placed in the paper file in proper order, no later than transmission of the file(s) to the Appeals Board, and (3) without a proper record the matter may be returned to the WCJ to properly complete the record. | ||
2007 significant panel decisions
| Kimberly Stokes vs. Patton State Hospital / Department of Mental Health / State of California, legally uninsured, administered by State Compensation Insurance Fund |
July 9, 2007 | 2007-SPD-2 |
| Case No. SBR 0311485 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 996 |
||
| The Board panel concluded that if an ambulatory surgery center is claiming to have provided medical treatment to applicant as a "clinic," it is required to have a fictitious-name permit and license from the Medical Board. However, if it is claiming to have provided services only as an "outpatient setting," it is not required to have a license or fictitious-name permit from the Medical Board if it is properly accredited by an agency recognized by the Medical Board. | ||
| Nelly Romero vs. Costco Wholesale, permissibly self-insured, |
June 14, 2007 | 2007-SPD-1 |
| Case No. OAK 0328271 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 824 |
||
| The Board held that for purposes of Labor Code 4062.1(e) and 4062.2(e), an employee has "received" a comprehensive medical-legal evaluation when the employee attends and participates in the medical evaluator's examination. In this case, because the applicant had not attended and participated in (i.e., not "received") an examination by a panel QME scheduled while the applicant was not represented by an attorney, the applicant was entitled to request a new QME panel when the applicant became represented by an attorney. The workers' compensation judge's order for a new QME panel was therefore affirmed.This opinion involved interpretation of additions to Labor Code 4062.1 and 4062.2 by SB 899. | ||
2006 significant panel decisions
| Caryl Erickson vs. Southern California Permanente Medical Group/ Kaiser Permanente, Permissibly Self-Insured |
December 28, 2006 | 2006-SPD-5 |
| Case Nos. POM 246580, POM 2465824 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 103 |
||
| The Board panel granted reconsideration and amended the WCJ s decision to defer the issue of the calculation of the amount of the permanent disability indemnity due to applicant after apportionment, pending issuance of the Supreme Court s decision(s) in Brodie vs.Workers Comp. Appeals Bd., review granted November 15, 2006, S146979 (2006 Cal. LEXIS 13527), in Welcher vs.Workers Comp. Appeals Bd., review granted November 15, 2006, S147030 (2006 Cal. LEXIS 13523), or in any other case in which the Supreme Court issues an opinion that resolves this issue. This deferral approach was a continuation of the approach previously being employed by the Appeals Board in light of the ongoing conflict and uncertainty in the appellate case law on this issue where multiple injuries and/or apportionment of permanent disability under new Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664 are involved. | ||
| Catherine Robbins vs. Sharp Healthcare; American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company; and Broadspire Services, Inc., Adjusting Agency |
September 26, 2006 | 2006-SPD-4 |
| Case No. SDO 0335934 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1291 |
||
| The Board panel concluded that bias or the appearance of bias solely against an attorney or law firm, as opposed to the party that the attorney or law firm represents, may be a valid ground for a petition for disqualification of a WCJ. In granting the defendant's petition for disqualification, it was determined that although there was no present actual bias by the judge toward the petitioning law firm, there was the appearance of bias sufficient to warrant disqualification. | ||
| Kathy Ward vs. City of Desert Hot Springs; permissibly self-insured and administered by Hezelrigg Risk, Management Services |
September 25, 2006 | 2006-SPD-3 |
| Case No. RIV 0069499 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1313 |
||
| The Board panel held that for claimed industrial injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2005, in which the employee is represented by an attorney: (1) pursuant to section 4060(c), medical disputes regarding the compensability of the alleged industrial injury must be resolved solely by the procedure provided in section 4062.2; and (2) an evaluation regarding compensability may not be obtained pursuant to section 4064(d) - and, if obtained, it is not admissible. | ||
| J Deanna Brasher vs. Nationwide Studio Fund; and State Compensation Insurance Fund |
September 5, 2006 | 2006-SPD-2 |
| Case No. OAK 0296709 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1282 |
||
| The Board panel held that, in response to a treating physician's recommendation for spinal surgery, an employer has the following options: 1) authorize the surgery, 2) object to the surgery, pursuant to section 4062(b), by filing a DWC Form 233 within 10 days of receipt of the doctor's recommendation, 3) submit the recommendation to utilization review, or 4) pursue both options 2 and 3, either simultaneously or by filing an objection after a utilization review denial, meeting the timelines for each process. If the employer denies the surgery pursuant to its utilization review, the employee must object within 10 days of receipt by the employee of the employer's denial. The dispute will then be resolved under the second opinion procedures in section 4062(b). | ||
| In the Matter of John H. Hoffman Jr. | May 17, 2006 | 2006-SPD-1 |
| Case No. Misc. 250 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 609 |
||
| The Board, in affirming the WCJ s finding that Mr. Hoffman had violated the provisions of WCAB Rule 10779, concluded that (1) both Rule 10779 and the State Bar Act preclude any non-reinstated former attorney who has been disbarred or suspended by the Supreme Court (for reasons other than nonpayment of State Bar fees), who has been placed on involuntary inactive status by the State Bar, or who has resigned with disciplinary proceedings pending against him or her from appearing as a representative of any party before the WCAB (at least if they have not received permission under Rule 10779); (2) this preclusion against appearing as a representative of any party extends to appearing on the behalf of any litigant, including but not limited to lien claimants; and (3) this preclusion against appearing as a representative in WCAB proceedings extends to any activity that would constitute the practice of law. | ||
2005 significant panel decisions
| Wilma Diggle vs. Sierra Sands Unified Schools District, Permissibly Self-Insured; and Self-Insured Schools of California (Adjusting Agent), |
October 7, 2005 | 2005-SPD-3 |
| WCAB No. BAK 0138299) | ||
| 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 1480 | ||
| It was noted that en banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs pursuant to WCAB Rule 10341. The Board concluded that this principle remains true where a petition for writ of review has been filed or even where a writ of review has been granted, either in the actual case in which the en banc decision issued or in a different case in which the en banc decision is directly implicated, unless and until either (1) the appellate court issues an opinion that explicitly or implicitly overrules the en banc decision or (2) the appellate court stays or suspends the operation of the en banc decision prior to the Court's issuance of an opinion. | ||
| Paul Hestehauge vs. Wayne Charkins; Laurie Charkins; California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau; and Tri-Star Risk Management (adjusting agent), |
September 23, 2005 | 2005-SPD-2 |
| (WCAB No. SFO 452026) | ||
| 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1294 | ||
| NOTE: The Board held that applicant was not an "employee" of defendant homeowners under Labor Code sections 3351(d) and 3352(h) because, in the 90 days prior to his injury, he had not both worked at least 52 hours for them and earned at least $100 from them. Nevertheless, the Board also concluded applicant was an "employee" of defendant homeowners under Labor Code section 3715(b): (1) because it applies to all residential employees listed therein, including those employed by insured employers; (2) because it is the Legislature's express intent that the three types of residential employees listed therein are covered under the Workers' Compensation Act if they would have been covered by the law in effect prior to January 1, 1977; and (3) because the pre-1977 law covered residential employees if either the work being performed was contemplated to last more than 10 days or the total labor cost was at least $100.00, and here applicant's work met the latter requirement. | ||
| Jose Reyes vs. Hart Plastering |
February 10, 2005 | 2005-SPD-1 |
| (WCAB No. POM 0261129) | ||
| 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 223 | ||
| NOTE: The Board held that the amendments to sections 4663 and 4664, which concern apportionment of permanent disability, have not affected the statutes governing the determination of whether an injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment, i.e., sections 3600 and 3208.3, or the case law interpreting those statutes. | ||
2004 significant panel decisions
| Kenneth Grom vs. Shasta Wood |
December 8, 2004 | 2004-SPD-4 |
| (WCAB No. RDG 0091839) | ||
| 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1567 | ||
| NOTE: The Board held that an applicant is entitled to such medical treatment as is reasonably required to "relieve" from the effects of an industrial injury, even if such treatment will not "cure" that injury. Thus, the phrases "cure and relieve" and "cure or relieve" are interchangeable. | ||
| Teresa Godinez vs. Buffets, Inc., permissibly self-insured and Specialty Risk Services, adjusting agent, |
October 4, 2004 | 2004-SPD-3 |
| (WCAB No. SJO 0225696) | ||
| 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 1311 | ||
| NOTE: The Board held that the timelines of an appeal from any determination or recommendation of the Administrative Director's vocational rehabilitation unit with reference to an injury occurring before January 1, 2004, is controlled by former Labor Code section 4645(d), and that defendant's appeal in this case was timely filed (i.e., filing of appeal with the Board within 20 days of service of the decision/recommendation, plus any additional time pursuant to WCAB Rule 10507). | ||
| Thomas Messinese vs. Automatic Heating and State Compensation Insurance Fund |
May 21, 2004 | 2004-SPD-2 |
| (WCAB No. RIV 055831) | ||
| 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 480 | ||
| NOTE: The Board concluded in essence that local child support agencies may issue valid and enforceable earning assignment orders without a signature by a judicial officer, that those assignment orders may include both future support obligations and arrearages, and that the local agencies are not required to obtain prior WCAB approval of these assignment orders. | ||
| John Lett vs. L.A.C.M.T.A; The Travelers' Insurance Company |
March 5, 2004 | 2004-SPD-1 |
| (WCAB No. VNO 0378504, VNO 0378505, VNO 0382578, VNO 0402513, VNO 0462718) | ||
| 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 250 - Writ denied at 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 636 | ||
| NOTE: The board held that applicant's signature on a deposition is not a condition precedent to the allowance of a deposition fee under Labor Code section 5710(b)(4).." | ||
2003 significant panel decisions
| Noe Vega vs. Taco Bell; California Indemnity Insurance Company |
June 9, 2003 | 2003-SPD-3 |
| (WCAB No. VNO 458318) | ||
| 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 921 | ||
| NOTE: The board held "that an expedited hearing shall be set on a defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Expedited Hearing under Section 5502(b) where the issue of a defendant's right to medical control within the scope of Section 4600.3, and concomitantly, an applicant's entitlement to medical treatment, is presented for decision." | ||
| Donna Yee Sanchez vs. Permanente Medical Group, and Athens Administrators (Adjusting Agent), Natalie Piatt vs Eureka Union School District; |
April 29, 2003 | 2003-SPD-3 |
| (WCAB No. OAK 271713 & SAC 304854) | ||
| 68 Cal.Comp. Cases 637 | ||
| In summary fashion, the Board (1) opined that for pre and post window period injury cases, applications must be filed before hearings may be conducted, orders issued, or the Board's judicial process invoked to compel discovery; (2) recognized that non-compelled pre-application investigation is permissible; (3) outlined remedies for pre-application abuse of discovery procedures; and (4) outlined conditions requiring the filing of an application under Labor Code section sections 4061(m) and 4063. | ||
| Shahin Motallebi vs. Astro Business Solutions, ICS.; Canon USA; Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance. |
March 18 , 2003 | 2003-SPD-2 |
| (WCAB No. VNO368013; VNO368014, VNO368015; VNO368016, VNO368017; VNO368018 |
||
| 68 Cal.Comp. Cases 445 | ||
| The case sets forth the specific conditions under which it was found that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine an applicant's liability for repayment of UCD benefits to EDD. | ||
| Alfred Lee (Deceased) Valerie L. Lee (Widow) vs. Miracle Ford; California Insurance Guarantee Association, administered by Intercare Insurance Services for HIH America Compensation (In Liquidation); West Covina Toyota; Universal Underwriters Insurance Company/Zurich North America. |
February 18 , 2003 | 2003-SPD-1 |
| (WCAB No. LAO 781284) | ||
| 68 Cal.Comp. Cases 213 | ||
| The Board concluded that an applicant may not elect against CIGA when there are other viable carriers having liability during the alleged cumulative exposure period. | ||
2002 significant panel decisions
| Les Hall vs. Valley Media and Legion Insurance Company |
September 12, 2002 | 2002-SPD-2 |
| (WCAB No. SAC 309589) | ||
| 67 Cal.Comp. Cases 1147 | ||
| The case deals with whether and under what circumstances Legion Insurance Company, now in rehabilitation, can be excused from an obligation to make lump-sum payments and can receive a stay on future hearings if a settlement is not reached in denied or disputed cases. | ||
| Manuel Manzano vs. Flavurence Corporation; Fremont Compensation Insurance -and - Sarojini Singh vs. American Shower Door; Republic Indemnity Company |
July 10, 2002 | 2002-SPD-1 |
| (WCAB No. LAO 778749 - Manzano) (WCAB No AHM 075204 -Singh ) |
||
| 67 Cal.Comp. Cases 914 | ||
| The cases deal with the issue of at what point in case proceedings may CIGA be appropriately dismissed. | ||
2000 significant panel decisions
| Isidoro A. Lucena vs. Diablo Auto Body; Liberty Mutual Insurance; Sun Valley Ford; Great States Insurance |
December 20, 2000 | 2000-SPD-1 |
| (WCAB No. WCK 037874) | ||
| 65 Cal. Comp. Cases 1425 | ||
1998 significant panel decisions
| Jeffrey Mabe vs. Mike's Trucking |
October 28, 1998 | 1998-SPD-8 |
| (WCAB No. VEN 105613) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1394 | ||
| Daniel Kaiser vs. California Electric |
October 26, 1998 | 1998-SPD-7 |
| (WCAB No. WCK 0039701) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1391 | ||
| Louis Jones vs. Target Stores |
October 26, 1998 | 1998-SPD-6 |
| (WCAB No. PAS 0040032) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1385 | ||
| George Wilson vs. Centinela Hospital Medical Center |
September 4, 1998 | 1998-SPD-5 |
| (WCAB No. LAO 726063, LAO 726064, LAO 727783) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1048 NOTE:Order Correcting for Clerical Error | ||
| George Wilson vs. Centinela Hospital Medical Center |
August 31, 1998 | 1998-SPD-4 |
| (WCAB Nos. LAO 726063, LAO 726064, LAO 727783) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1048 | ||
| Donald Stockman vs. State of California |
July 24, 1998 | 1998-SPD-3 |
| (WCAB No. BAK 123730, BAK 123079, BAK 123080) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1042 | ||
| Sally Larch (Fleming) vs. Contra Costa County |
July 10, 1998 | 1998-SPD-2 |
| (WCAB No. WCK 21372) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 831 Writ of review denied 8/12/99 -- 64 CCC 1098 Supreme Court denied review 10/20/99 NOTE: Petition for Writ of Review filed August 21, 1998. |
||
| Kathleen Czarnecki vs. Golden Eagle Insurance Company |
May 26, 1998 | 1998-SPD-1 |
| (WCAB No. SDO 0217617, SDO 0217759) | ||
| 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 742 | ||
1997 significant panel decisions
| Ramon Becerra vs Eastside Reservoir Project |
July 17, 1997 | 1997-SPD-1 |
| (WCAB No. AHM 51304) | ||
| 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 937 | ||
| Kathryn Green-Rhoads vs. Gran Teasley |
July 17, 1997 | 1997-SPD-2 |
| (WCAB No. RDG 0060772) | ||
| 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 943 | ||
| Donald W. Gubbins vs. Metropolitan Insurance Companies |
July 17, 1997 | 1997-SPD-3 |
| (WCAB No. SAL 227062) | ||
| 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 946 | ||
| Julio Cedeno vs. American National Insurance Company |
July 21, 1997 | 1997-SPD-4 |
| (WCAB No. LAO 729720) | ||
| 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 939 | ||
March 2024