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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stafford v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Danny L. Stafford sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration's decision denying his application for a closed period of disability insurance benefits, marking his second federal court appearance for this claim. The court previously remanded the case for reconsideration of new evidence. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Harry L. Williams, Jr., reconsidered and again denied the application. Plaintiff alleged legal errors by the Commissioner in evaluating medical opinions and substantial evidence errors in credibility determinations and the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. The court, led by District Judge Heartfield, adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, finding no legal error in the ALJ's evaluation of the treating physician's opinion and concluding any other errors were harmless. The court also determined that the ALJ's credibility findings and the hypothetical question were supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision was affirmed, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActALJ decision reviewTreating physician opinionMedical evidenceResidual functional capacityVocational expert testimonySubstantial evidenceHarmless errorChronic pain
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2013

Karabinas v. Colvin

Dimitrios N. Karabinas challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his Disability Insurance Benefits application, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed several legal errors. The court identified flaws in the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment, including failure to accommodate Karabinas's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace, and an incomplete function-by-function analysis of his work abilities. Furthermore, the court found the ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions, specifically downplaying the detailed report from Karabinas's chiropractor, and based its credibility determination on a circular logic. Concluding that the ALJ's errors led to an unsupported denial of benefits, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's decision. The case was remanded for the sole purpose of calculating and providing benefits to Karabinas for the specified period.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActRFC AssessmentMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentVocational ExpertCervical Disc ProblemsPain ManagementChiropractic TreatmentWork Limitations
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Heckler

Plaintiff, a 35-year-old man suffering from severe asthma and chronic bronchitis, had his Social Security disability benefits terminated by the defendant, who claimed he had regained the ability to work. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the termination, finding the plaintiff's conditions did not meet disability criteria. The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's decision. However, the District Court reversed the defendant's decision and remanded the case, citing significant errors by the ALJ. The errors included misapplying "Listed Impairments" regulations regarding intensive treatment for asthma, failing to consider the cumulative impact of plaintiff's various impairments and medication side effects, and improperly discrediting the plaintiff's and his father's testimony, as well as the reports from the treating physician, Dr. V.

Social Security DisabilityAsthmaChronic BronchitisALJ ErrorRemandMedical EvidenceTreating PhysicianCredibility AssessmentListed ImpairmentsSummary Judgment Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartrum v. Astrue

Lucy J. Bart-rum applied for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, but her applications were denied by the Commissioner of Social Security. She sought judicial review of this decision in federal court. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made a significant error by misstating the date of a crucial medical report from her treating physician, Dr. Scott Van Gorder. This error critically impacted the ALJ's assessment of Bart-rum's residual functional capacity (RFC) and her credibility regarding her symptoms and limitations. As a result, the United States Magistrate Judge granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings to rectify these factual and legal errors.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Treating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentRemandAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ErrorMedical EvidenceVocational Expert
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dioguardi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Darcia S. DioGuardi sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final determination denying her Disability Insurance Benefits. The District Court, presided over by Judge Larimer, denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and partially granted the plaintiff's motion. The case was reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings due to multiple legal errors by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nancy Lee Gregg. Specifically, the ALJ failed to properly weigh the opinion of a treating physician, reconcile discrepancies in medical source statements, and base hypothetical questions to a vocational expert on all functional limitations. The court also suggested the Appeals Council consider assigning the case to a different ALJ due to concerns about impartiality and repeated legal errors.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsALJ ErrorsTreating Physician RuleRFC AssessmentVocational Expert TestimonyRemandAdministrative LawFederal Court ReviewMedical Evidence
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Colvin

Plaintiff Noemi Ortiz sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). Ortiz alleged disability since August 11, 2011, but an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found her not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. Before the District Court, Ortiz argued the Commissioner's decision lacked substantial evidence and was based on legal errors, specifically regarding the ALJ's assessment of her residual functional capacity (RFC) and medical opinions. The Court found the ALJ's RFC determination supported by substantial evidence and that any errors in incorporating medical opinions or misattributions were harmless. Consequently, Ortiz's motion to vacate was denied, the Commissioner's cross-motion was granted, and Ortiz's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial SecurityJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawResidual Functional CapacityMedical OpinionsAsthmaShoulder PainWrist InjuryTenosynovitis
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Colvin

Plaintiff Timothy Woods appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The District Court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) five-step disability determination process. The court identified two key errors in the ALJ's step five analysis: first, the ALJ incorrectly classified Plaintiff as a "younger individual" instead of considering him "a person closely approaching advanced age" despite his borderline age; and second, the finding that Plaintiff possessed transferable skills was not supported by substantial evidence, as the skills were deemed industry-specific and too vague. Due to these errors, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ ErrorTransferable SkillsAge CategoriesBorderline AgeRemandAdministrative LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureVocational Expert Testimony
References
24
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Case No. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. ADJ1312021
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

GRICELDA AREVALOS vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order corrects clerical errors in a prior decision regarding Gricelda Arevalos's case. The errors involved an incorrect case number in the caption and an extra space within the case number later in the document. The Board is correcting these errors to reflect the accurate case number ADJ1312021 without further proceedings. This amendment ensures the official record is accurate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCLERICAL ERRORSORDER CORRECTINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCASE NUMBER CORRECTIONADJ7430358ADJ0302021ADJ1312021SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGSCONTINGENT PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,074 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