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

Law v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Sherdic Law challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Social Security Income disability benefits, alleging disability due to various impairments including chronic leg pain, lower back pain, hepatitis C, and hyperthyroidism. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Law's claim, finding he could perform sedentary work. U.S. District Judge Mukasey vacated the SSA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the administrative record regarding Law’s chronic leg pain, specifically omitting to obtain and review his EMG report despite objective medical evidence and Law’s testimony. This failure resulted in Law not receiving a full and fair hearing.

Social Security IncomeDisability BenefitsChronic Leg PainHerniated DiscHepatitis CHyperthyroidismHypertensionLumbar SpineAdministrative Law JudgeRemand
References
23
Case No. ADJ 4252592 (VNO 0411668)ADJ 3234790 (VNO 0443319) (MF)
Regular
May 04, 2012

HARRY WINSTON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by the City of Los Angeles challenging the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding of a single cumulative trauma injury. The applicant stipulated to two separate cumulative trauma periods for various injuries, but subsequent medical opinions from treating physicians concluded there was one continuous cumulative trauma injury spanning the applicant's entire employment. The ALJ amended the stipulations to align with this medical evidence and dismissed one of the applicant's cases as duplicative. Therefore, the ALJ recommends denying the employer's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryAmended FindingsOpinion on DecisionStipulationsMedical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluationAgreed Medical EvaluationDate of Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ1936318
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

JUAN RIVERA vs. MORROW CABLE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ recommended dismissal or denial of the petition due to improper verification by the defendant's attorney. The central issue was the necessity and reasonableness of a $165 lien for an interpreter to translate a Compromise and Release document for a Spanish-speaking applicant. The ALJ found such interpretation reasonable and necessary to protect both parties, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant's attorney speaking Spanish negated this need.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902CCP 446VerificationDismissalLienLogos Language
References
0
Case No. ADJ8740864, ADJ8764475, ADJ8960944
Regular
Oct 16, 2025

KATHY BRANDOW vs. LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE SINGER, THE HARTFORD

Applicant Kathy Brandow sought to disqualify a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), alleging bias and conflict of interest. The defendants, Law Offices of Wayne Singer and The Hartford, responded, and the WCJ filed a report recommending denial of the petition. After reviewing all submissions, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for disqualification, finding no grounds for bias or prejudice. The Board further cautioned the applicant against repeatedly filing unmeritorious motions, warning that such conduct could lead to vexatious litigant proceedings.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationWCJ biasconflict of interestLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641unqualified opinionenmitybiasWCAB Rule 10960
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tijani

After beginning unemployment insurance benefits, the claimant's benefits were reduced due to concurrent receipt of workers' compensation benefits. An Administrative Law Judge sustained this reduction. The claimant's subsequent appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was dismissed as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's concession that the benefit reduction was proper and that he had no obvious reason to appeal the initial ALJ decision. The court also stated that any claims regarding later adjustments to unemployment benefits due to workers' compensation suspension were beyond the current record's scope and must be pursued before the agency.

Unemployment InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit AdjustmentUntimely AppealAdministrative DecisionsJudicial ReviewConcession of FactAppellate ProcedureScope of ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ1620559 (ANA 0373462)
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

Wayne Johnson vs. Tennant Company, Sentry Claims Service

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering applicant's counsel, defense counsel, and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide sworn declarations regarding an alleged ex parte communication. This communication apparently led the WCJ to vacate a prior submission order, citing the applicant's upcoming surgery and a utilization review denial resolution. The defendant seeks removal, claiming the WCJ improperly obtained this information. The WCAB is also ordering all future correspondence be directed to the Commissioners.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDecision after ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpineRight Lower ExtremityPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ3660859, ADJ4106950, ADJ876448
Regular
Jun 30, 2025

JOAN LEOPOLD vs. LAW OFFICES OF MARVYN GORDON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Joan Leopold filed a petition to disqualify a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), alleging bias due to the WCJ's purported personal relationship with her former attorney and excusing defendant's counsel from a trial related to attorney fees. The WCJ denied any personal relationship and clarified the defendant's role. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying the petition. The Board found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient factual basis for disqualification and that the petition was not timely filed according to WCAB Rule 10960.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)BiasTelephonic HearingAttorney FeesLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960
References
11
Case No. ADJ2901317 (FRE0226671)
Regular
May 02, 2011

Connie Mehia vs. CITY OF FRESNO C/O AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS (AARLA)

The applicant sought workers' compensation benefits for a stroke, claiming it arose out of and in the course of employment due to workplace stress. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding no credible evidence that a workplace incident caused the stroke. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant failed to prove the crucial element of a work-related precipitating event. Both QMEs opined the stroke could be industrially related, but their opinions relied on the applicant's account of a specific workplace argument that the WCJ found unsubstantiated.

AOE/COEindustrial strokeworkers' compensationreconsiderationcausationpre-existing conditionQualified Medical Examinercredibilitysubstantial evidencework-related stress
References
0
Case No. ADJ19555636
Regular
Jun 24, 2025

FRAMEE AMOR JONES vs. VISTA KNOLL SPECIALIZED CARE, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Applicant, Framee Amor Jones, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order from April 9, 2025, which found she did not sustain a psyche injury at work. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) concluded that actual events of employment were not the predominant cause of her claimed psychiatric injury. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. Citing Labor Code sections regarding the 60-day action period and the burden of proof for psychiatric injury causation, the Board affirmed the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to overturn them. Consequently, the Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric InjuryPredominant CausePreponderance of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeOccupational Therapy AssistantIndustrial CausationActual Events of Employment
References
5
Case No. ADJ17464637
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

Alisher Suliemanov vs. Pizza Hut, Pizza Hut, Southern California Pizza Co., Athens Administrators

The case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant after an Order Approving a Compromise and Release (OACR) was executed and later amended by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ rescinded the original OACR and issued an amended one within the 15-day period allowed by WCAB Rule 10961(c). Consequently, the Appeals Board determined that no further action was necessary on the Petition for Reconsideration because the disputed order no longer existed. Despite the WCJ preparing a Report and Recommendation, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseRescinded OrderAmended OrderJurisdictionWCJ ReportWithdrawal RequestMoot PetitionWCAB Rule 10961
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 22,940 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