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. ADJ7288330
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

GLORIA BENITEZ vs. NEWPORT SUBACUTE HEALTH CARE CENTER, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant, Gloria Benitez, sought to reopen her workers' compensation claim to include injury to additional body parts beyond her cervical spine and psyche. The original award found injury only to the cervical spine and psyche, with a 19% permanent disability rating for the cervical spine. While the WCJ's initial decision denied injury to additional body parts, the Board granted reconsideration. The Board amended the original findings to defer the issue of injury to the alleged additional body parts, while affirming other aspects of the WCJ's order, including the appointment of a regular physician to evaluate new and further disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderNew and Further DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerRegular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5410Petition to ReopenIndustrial InjuryCervical Spine
References
4
Case No. ADJ18492736
Regular
Sep 30, 2025

MARIA HERNANDEZ vs. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a petition for reconsideration filed by Safety National Insurance, challenging a WCJ's finding that Maria Hernandez sustained injury to multiple body parts. The Board found the treating physician's report lacked substantial medical evidence due to inadequate records and a flawed job description. Additionally, the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports were incomplete and inconsistent regarding all body parts except the left hand. Consequently, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and substituted new findings, determining that Hernandez sustained a cumulative injury only to her left hand while deferring the issue of injury to other body parts for further development of the record.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Ordersubstantial medical evidenceQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)cumulative traumabilateral shoulderswristshandsleft hand injury
References
19
Case No. ADJ8675755
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

MARIA MATA vs. PARK VIEW GARDENS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, YORK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendants, Park View Gardens and Safety National Casualty Corporation. The defendants sought removal of an interlocutory order allowing applicant Maria Mata to conduct further discovery related to additional claimed body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Administrative Law Judge's report recommended denial, noting the defendants' prior awareness of the additional body parts and their lack of timely objection to discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFinal OrderDeclaration of ReadinessOff CalendarFurther Discovery
References
0
Case No. ADJ9767947
Regular
Jan 18, 2017

GILBERT PEREZ vs. ABC SHEET METAL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injury to his left knee and abdomen. The trial judge initially found injury to these parts but also found no injury to back, psyche, lower extremities, and stress, which the applicant appealed. The appellate court annulled the denial of reconsideration, finding the trial judge improperly ruled on body parts not fully at issue. The Appeals Board rescinded the negative finding, deferred the issue of additional injured body parts, and remanded for further proceedings to determine if injury to other parts occurred.

WCABindustrial injurywelderleft kneeabdomenbackpsychelower extremitiesstressCourt of Appeal
References
0
Case No. ADJ10045939
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

Raymond Ames vs. Goodman Global, ACE American Insurance Company

This case involves an employer's petition to remove a workers' compensation matter to the Appeals Board for review of an order allowing the applicant to obtain additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels. The employer argued that further QME panels were not permitted without a treating physician's determination supporting the disputed body parts injured. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the employer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The majority affirmed the judge's order, concluding the record supported further development of disputed body parts. One commissioner dissented, arguing the applicant failed to establish a dispute with a treating physician's report as required by statute.

QME panelpetition for removaldisputed body partsmedical record developmentirreparable harmsubstantial prejudicetreating physicianDWC Rule 31.7Labor Code section 5310WCAB Rule 10843
References
3
Case No. ADJ8759846
Regular
Jun 05, 2025

Manuel Agurto vs. Peterberg Construction, Inc.; Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Applicant, Manuel Agurto, seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where the WCJ found injury to his psyche and determined his average weekly wage. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision (OOD) also included findings of injury to other body parts and awarded future medical for some. Applicant challenged various interlocutory issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to rescind the F&O and substitute it with a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) to reflect all of the WCJ's findings, awards, and orders, including additional body parts injured and an award of future medical, while deferring other issues for further development of the record. The Board admonished applicant's attorneys for frivolous conduct.

AOE/COEpsyche injuryAMEPQMEoccupational group 480Labor Code 4453(c)(4)petition for reconsiderationfinal orderinterlocutory issuesremoval standard
References
8
Case No. ADJ17819410; ADJ17819411
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

GUILHERME GUIMARAES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK

Defendant County of Los Angeles sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award issued on March 18, 2025, by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had ruled that applicant Guilherme Guimaraes was entitled to separate salary continuation benefits under Labor Code section 4850 for two distinct injuries, even if some periods of disability overlapped. The defendant contended that the WCJ erred in awarding a separate period of benefits, arguing that the existence of common body parts between claims should disqualify the applicant from additional benefits once the initial 52 weeks were paid. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, after reviewing the arguments and the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's reasoning, emphasizing that entitlement to Section 4850 benefits is determined by the time period and reason for disability per claim, consistent with wage replacement policy, rather than merely by overlapping body parts.

Labor Code section 4850Salary continuation benefitsCumulative traumaSpecific injuryOverlapping disabilityConcurrent disabilityWage replacementTemporary total disabilityFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.Joint Findings and Award
References
4
Case No. ADJ14263093
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

CECILIA OJEDA vs. AMY'S KITCHEN, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The applicant claimed cumulative injury to her neck, bilateral wrists, shoulders, and upper extremities, which the employer initially denied for all body parts except the neck. The WCJ found injury to all claimed body parts, relying on treating physicians' reports, and found the QME's reports unsubstantial due to inconsistencies and admissions of uncertainty during deposition. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the QME's opinion was substantial evidence regarding injured body parts and permanent disability. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the QME's testimony was too speculative and contradictory to constitute substantial evidence for the disputed body parts.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardOrthopedic Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Substantial EvidenceCumulative InjuryBilateral WristsBilateral ShouldersBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCervical Radiculopathy
References
3
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. ADJ10771579
Regular
Aug 08, 2018

Gabriel Ruano vs. Mayekawa USA, SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BROADSPIRE

This case involved a worker claiming industrial injury to multiple body parts. The Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration to correct the Findings of Fact. The Board amended the Findings to accurately reflect all injured body parts, including the psyche, and removed an incorrectly listed body part. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original decision with these specified amendments.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factsubstantial evidencemedical reportsprimary treating physicianBal S. Grewal Ph.D.Report and Recommendationinjured body partspsychecervical spine
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,208 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