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. ADJ9854290
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

MARY VIEIRA vs. PASO ROBLES TANK, INCORPORATED., OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involves defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of total permanent disability due to an admitted industrial right ankle injury complicated by Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). Defendant argues the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report lacks substantial evidence due to failure to review prior injury records and for not using DRE ratings. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to admit a supplemental QME report that reviewed the prior injury records and did not alter the QME's opinions. The Board intends to admit this supplemental report unless good cause is shown within 15 days.

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeCRPSQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEsubstantial evidenceDRE ratingsAMA Guidessupplemental reportPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ4111589, ADJ2809505, ADJ4372783, ADJ1391390, ADJ2081394, ADJ8992669
Regular
Oct 09, 2015

GUILLERMO CORNEJO vs. SOLAR TURBINES, INC.

This case involves a worker who sustained multiple admitted industrial injuries to his right foot, back, right thigh, psyche, right lower extremity, and hands. The applicant alleged a subsequent left shoulder condition arose as a compensable consequence of these prior injuries due to a fall. Initially, an administrative law judge found the fall was not industrial, ruling the applicant merely tripped. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that medical evidence established the applicant's admitted industrial injuries caused weakness in his right lower extremity and balance issues, which contributed to his fall. Therefore, the Board reversed the prior ruling, determining the left shoulder condition was a compensable consequence of the original industrial injuries.

compensable consequenceadmitted industrial injuriesleft shoulder conditionright footright lower extremitybalanceweaknessfallL4-L5 fusionradiculopathy
References
4
Case No. ADJ6814665
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

JULIO GARCIA vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ determined the applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to his left knee and non-admitted industrial injury to his right second toe, resulting in 25% permanent disability. The WCJ found the right second toe injury industrial based on hospital records indicating a fracture, despite the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion that it was not industrial. The defendant also challenged the attorney's fee, but the Board found they lacked standing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeFindings Award and OrdersIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistCausationRancho Los Amigos Hospital Records
References
7
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foulton v. Martec Industries

The claimant, a laborer for Martec Industries, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained on June 7, 2006. Martec and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, citing the claimant's history of prior back injuries in 1998 and 2000. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, concluding the June 7, 2006 incident constituted an accidental work-related aggravation of prior injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the June 7, 2006 incident caused a new disability. Evidence showed the claimant had experienced chronic back pain since 1998, and physicians attributed his disability primarily to preexisting conditions. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. ADJ1737177 (SAC 0359710)
Regular
Aug 11, 2014

Melinda Peterson vs. ALTIM HARMONY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that denied an industrial injury to the applicant's left eye, despite admitting a cervical spine and psyche injury. The applicant contends that her vision loss is a result of her cervical surgery, as supported by an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. The Board found the medical record inadequately developed regarding the cause and industrial causation of the eye injury. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for further medical evaluations to establish a causal connection to the admitted injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMelinda PetersonAltim HarmonyAthens Administrators Insurance CompanyADJ1737177SAC 0359710Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ1970560 (OAK 0344240)
Regular
Mar 09, 2016

VAZGEN MANAS vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, as administrator of the SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns a credit sought by the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) for permanent disability advances paid to the applicant. The SIBTF argued that its liability for combined permanent disability should be calculated under Labor Code section 4751, which limits liability to the difference between the combined disability and the disability from the subsequent injury alone. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board agreed, reversing the prior finding that allowed a credit under section 4753 for the employer's payments. The Board clarified that section 4753 applies to payments for preexisting disability, not the subsequent industrial injury, and thus SIBTF's credit is limited by section 4751.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751Labor Code section 4753permanent disability advancespreexisting permanent disabilitysubsequent industrial injurycombined permanent disabilitycreditWCJFindings of Fact
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2003

Coku v. Millar Elevator Industries, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint against Millar Elevator Industries, Inc. The injured plaintiff, a maintenance worker, allegedly sustained injuries when he fell from a stepladder in a service elevator that suddenly dropped. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, despite the plaintiffs establishing the necessary elements (event ordinarily indicating negligence, defendant's exclusive control, and no plaintiff contribution). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment, reinstated the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs a new trial against Millar Elevator Industries, Inc. Additionally, testimony regarding an experiment with the stepladder was deemed inadmissible for the new trial.

Personal InjuryNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturElevator AccidentStepladder FallJury InstructionsExclusive ControlNew TrialAdmissibility of EvidenceAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. ADJ4118575
Regular
May 26, 2010

MANUEL ORTIZ vs. TOWER INDUSTRIES, INC., SCIF INSURED INLAND EMPIRE

This case involves a worker, Manuel Ortiz, who sustained a severe admitted industrial injury resulting in 100% permanent disability. The defendant, SCIF, sought reconsideration, arguing the WCJ's jump from a 98% to 100% rating lacked sufficient justification and that injury to sleep and erectile dysfunction were erroneously found. However, the Appeals Board denied the petitions, finding the evidence supported the 100% permanent disability rating. The Board emphasized Ortiz's significant injuries, ongoing pain, inability to control bodily functions, and uncorrected erectile dysfunction as establishing total permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4662Agreed Medical ExaminersUrological InjuryErectile DysfunctionSleep DisorderPermanent Total DisabilityFindings and Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ginsberg v. Industrial Home for the Blind

The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving plaintiff Seymour Ginsberg, who sustained a transportation-related injury during his employment with the Industrial Home for the Blind. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's sole legal recourse was under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Term correctly granted the defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint. This decision was based on the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, making the Workers’ Compensation Law the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTransportation InjuryEmployment
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 14,120 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