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. ADJ11201607, ADJ11201608
Regular
Jun 10, 2024

SAMMY VIGIL vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Appeals Board held that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) may be rebutted and impairments added where an applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs) and shows either that there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs or that the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs.

WCABEn BancReconsiderationFindings of FactAwards and OrdersPermanent Partial DisabilityHip Replacement SurgeryApportionmentCombined Values ChartPermanent Disability Ratings Schedule
References
19
Case No. ADJ2786471 (AHM 0131083) ADJ1723308 (AHM 0131186) ADJ1776217 (AHM 0131184)
Regular
Jul 12, 2011

RENE GARCIA vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision regarding applicant Rene Garcia's industrial injury to his low back and knees. The Board found that the treating physician's impairment rating was not substantial evidence because it impermissibly considered the applicant's ability to compete in the open labor market, in addition to Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), deviating from *Almaraz/Guzman* guidelines. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including a supplemental report or deposition from the physician, to clarify the *Almaraz/Guzman* analysis solely on ADLs.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Anaheimfirefightercumulative traumapermanent disability awardapportionmentAMA GuidesAlmaraz v. Environmental Recovery ServicesMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Whole Person Impairment
References
7
Case No. ADJ11054646, ADJ11055389, ADJ10719681
Regular
Apr 07, 2025

ALAN NEWELL vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

Applicant Alan Newell sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Awards from January 3, 2025, concerning two industrial injuries. The WCJ had rated permanent disability by combining all impairments, contrary to the Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Chester A. Hasday's opinion on how to combine impairments based on overlapping Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Dr. Hasday's pre-Vigil decision rebuttal analysis for combining impairments based on ADL overlap was valid, and the record needed further development. The case was remanded to defer the issues of permanent disability and apportionment for further analysis.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCombined Values ChartActivities of Daily Living (ADLs)Medical TreatmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistLabor Code Section 4663Rebuttal
References
7
Case No. ADJ11201607 (MF); ADJ11201608
Significant
Jun 10, 2024

Sammy Vigil vs. County of Kern

The Appeals Board holds that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) may be rebutted by adding impairments when an applicant demonstrates through substantial evidence that there is no overlap in the impact on Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), or that any overlap creates a synergistic effect that amplifies the disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionReconsiderationPermanent Disability Ratings ScheduleCombined Values ChartRebuttalActivities of Daily LivingSynergistic EffectApportionmentHikida
References
18
Case No. ADJ8716925
Regular
May 27, 2025

MARCO VILLA vs. SHULTZ STEEL COMPANY INC, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

Applicant Marco Villa petitioned for reconsideration of a February 19, 2025, Findings and Award (F&A) that found his permanent disability to be 61% and did not categorize his injury as catastrophic. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report, determined that the record was not adequately developed, specifically concerning medical evidence on Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and the proper evaluation of sub-rosa videos in the context of catastrophic injury. The Board granted the petition for reconsideration but deferred a final decision on the merits, indicating further review and proceedings are necessary to ensure a just and reasoned outcome.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCatastrophic InjuryPermanent DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionActivities of Daily Living (ADLs)Sub-rosa VideoVocational ExpertDEU Rating
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06887 [211 AD3d 432]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Francis P. Lively, appealed an order that dismissed his complaint against Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. and Fawaz Al-Mubaraki. Lively, a former senior managing director, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated due to sexual harassment complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Lively failed to sufficiently allege age discrimination or a causal connection for retaliation. Additionally, his claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were also found to be inadequately pleaded or barred by other laws. The Second Circuit's prior dismissal of federal claims did not, however, preclude state law claims based on collateral estoppel.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawCollateral EstoppelWrongful TerminationTortious InterferenceDefamationUnjust EnrichmentQuantum Meruit
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Holcomb v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal by the Daily News regarding a Workmen's Compensation Board award of death benefits to the widow of John Holcomb. Holcomb, an employee of the Daily News, sustained fatal injuries after falling from a company delivery truck while being transported to work by a fellow employee. The appellants argued that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer was not contractually obligated to provide transportation. However, the Board found, and the Appellate Division affirmed, that a common and regular practice of employees transporting each other to work, knowingly acquiesced to by the employer for its own benefit, constituted an implicit assumption of responsibility for transportation-related risks. The court held that a frequent and regular practice of providing transportation, even if not contractually obligated, can render such transportation incidental to employment, making resulting injuries compensable.

Fatal AccidentTransportation to WorkEmployer AcquiescenceCommon PracticeCourse of EmploymentDeath BenefitsWorkers' CompensationImplied ContractGratuitous TransportationRisk Responsibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Grande'Vie Senior Living Community

Plaintiff John A. Wheeler suffered injuries after slipping on ice and falling in the parking lot of defendant's assisted living facility while helping his mother-in-law move during a snowstorm. The area where he fell had been shoveled, but ice was present beneath a thin layer of snow. Wheeler and his wife initiated a personal injury action, which the Supreme Court dismissed by granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing the "storm in progress" doctrine. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant's snow removal efforts created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards of the storm. Furthermore, the court found no duty to warn of icy conditions during an ongoing storm under the specific circumstances, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityStorm in Progress DoctrineSummary JudgmentLandowner DutySnow RemovalIceNegligenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02680
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2022

Finocchi v. Live Nation Inc.

Carmen J. Finocchi, Jr. sustained injuries while manually loading rigging equipment, leading to a lawsuit against Live Nation Inc. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, ruling that Finocchi's failure to use an available forklift was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court found that Finocchi's choice not to use a forklift could not be deemed the sole proximate cause, particularly as he was instructed to lift the equipment manually. The court also affirmed that the work performed fell under the coverage of Labor Law § 240 (1), reinstating the claim, granting judgment on liability to the plaintiffs, and remitting for a new trial solely on the issue of damages.

LiabilityWorkplace SafetyForkliftManual LiftingAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative FaultInjuryDemolition WorkStage Rigging
References
20
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,759 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