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. ADJ1142998
Regular
May 29, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the original decision which denied the applicant's claim for avascular necrosis of the right hip as a compensable consequence of a prior industrial injury. The Board found the original decision was not supported by substantial medical evidence, specifically finding the reliance on Dr. Glancz's report to be erroneous and speculative. Dr. Barber's reports, however, were deemed substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim that the fall and subsequent gait issues significantly impacted his right hip condition. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequenceindustrial injuryright hipleft lower extremitymedical treatmentQualified Medical Examiner (QME)substantial evidenceopinionreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ1142998 (RDG 0118288)
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had previously rescinded a finding that avascular necrosis was not a compensable consequence of the applicant's injury, finding the relied-upon medical opinion speculative. The defendant argues the WCJ correctly favored the opinion of Dr. Glancz over Dr. Barber. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reaffirming that Dr. Glancz's opinion was not substantial evidence due to repeated questioning of the injury mechanism, while Dr. Barber's opinion was persuasive and based on a complete history. Therefore, the WCAB maintained its prior decision that Dr. Barber's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequencesubstantial evidencemedical opinionworkers' compensation administrative law judgereconsiderationfindings and ordermedical treatmentindustrial basissubstantial evidence
References
Case No. ADJ9362908
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

Amanda Wurtzberger vs. Sutter County Probation, LWP Claims Solution

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. This denial was based on the WCJ's report, which found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion was sound, logical, and constituted substantial medical evidence. The WCJ specifically rejected the applicant's contentions that the AME's opinion was unreliable and preferred the opinions of other treating physicians, citing their lack of expertise and inadequate documentation. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and upheld the original order denying the applicant's claim for a left hip injury.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorAME opinionsubstantial medical evidenceavascular necrosisPetition for ReconsiderationdenialWCJ reportcausationindustrial injurycumulative trauma
References
Case No. ADJ1634978 / LAO 794002
Regular
Nov 04, 2009

RANDY SPENCER vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

Reconsideration denied. WCJ's decision supported by substantial evidence. Apportionment not warranted; applicant's testimony credible.

Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4663Labor Code section 5903apportionmentavascular necrosisindustrial injurypermanent disabilitysubstantial evidencemedical opinionaverage weekly wage
References
Case No. ADJ3843514
Regular
Sep 15, 2008

Ramona J. Ornelas vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Reconsideration granted to address errors in permanent disability rating and apportionment. Matter returned for new rating considering walker use and clarifying apportionment.

RAMONA J. ORNELASCOUNTY OF SACRAMENTOADJ3843514SAC 0274104OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONLEFT MINOR SHOULDERLEFT MINOR WRISTBILATERAL KNEESPSYCHE
References
Case No. ADJ182223 (WCK 0010755) ADJ2640291 (OAK 0313072) ADJ2670444 (OAK 0331911)
Regular
Mar 27, 2009

CLAIRE SCHLOENVOGT vs. GRANNY GOOSE FOODS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION BY SERVICING AGENCY, CAMBRIDGE SAN DIEGO, FREMONT INDEMNITY IN LIQUIDATION, TRAVELERS

This case involves applicant Claire Schloenvogt's workers' compensation claims, specifically concerning injuries to his shoulders, neck, and back. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) sought reconsideration of a decision that denied a cumulative trauma injury claim ending on October 31, 1999. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion supported a cumulative trauma injury based on the applicant's 30 years of employment. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to include this cumulative trauma injury finding.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClaire SchloenvogtGranny Goose FoodsCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont IndemnityTravelerscumulative trauma injurybilateral shouldersneckback
References
Showing 1-6 of 6 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