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

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Mario Almaraz vs. Environmental Recovery Services (a.k.a. ENVIROSERVE), State Compensation Insurance Fund Joyce Guzman vs. Milpitas Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Keenan & Associates, Adjusting Agent

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration in two consolidated cases, Almaraz and Guzman, to study the issues raised in a petition and allows for the filing of amicus curiae briefs by any interested person or entity.

WCABReconsiderationAmicus BriefsEn Banc DecisionAMA GuidesPermanent DisabilityThreshold IssueRebuttalFinal OrderInterlocutory Decision
References
18
Case No. ADJ2786471 (AHM 0131083) ADJ1723308 (AHM 0131186) ADJ1776217 (AHM 0131184)
Regular
Jul 12, 2011

RENE GARCIA vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision regarding applicant Rene Garcia's industrial injury to his low back and knees. The Board found that the treating physician's impairment rating was not substantial evidence because it impermissibly considered the applicant's ability to compete in the open labor market, in addition to Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), deviating from *Almaraz/Guzman* guidelines. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including a supplemental report or deposition from the physician, to clarify the *Almaraz/Guzman* analysis solely on ADLs.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Anaheimfirefightercumulative traumapermanent disability awardapportionmentAMA GuidesAlmaraz v. Environmental Recovery ServicesMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Whole Person Impairment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Guzman v. Jay

Plaintiff Noel Jackson Guzman filed a Section 1983 action against New York City Police Officer Brian Jay, alleging false arrest and excessive force stemming from a 2009 incident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Guzman, awarding him significant compensatory and punitive damages for false arrest and excessive force. Officer Jay subsequently moved for a new trial, remittitur, and judgment as a matter of law. The court denied motions for a new trial and remittitur, but granted judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest claim due to qualified immunity. This decision was based on the jury's finding that Officer Jay reasonably, though possibly mistakenly, believed Guzman was fighting at the time of arrest.

False ArrestExcessive Force42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityJury VerdictRemittiturNew Trial MotionJudgment as a Matter of LawPolice MisconductPersonal Injury
References
43
Case No. ADJ3311649 (LAO 0871212)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

MILTON JEOVANY LOPEZ vs. LAZAR TRUCK LINES, NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS FOR CTSA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that awarded the applicant 2% permanent disability for a knee injury. The applicant argued the rating was inaccurate based on the AMA Guides and sought recalculation under *Almaraz/Guzman*. The Board found the permanent disability issue was properly raised and that the medical record needed further development. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level to re-evaluate permanent disability consistent with the *Almaraz/Guzman* ruling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilton Jeovany LopezLazar Truck LinesNovapro Risk SolutionsADJ3311649LAO 0871212ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAMA Guides
References
3
Case No. ADJ480092 (SFO 0498380) ADJ2934310 (SFO 0498381)
Regular
Apr 26, 2009

TONI MORGAN vs. REDWOOD CREDIT UNION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation judge's finding that the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) should apply to two cumulative trauma injuries. The applicant argued for the 1997 PDRS, asserting a defendant's termination of temporary disability payments triggered a Labor Code notice requirement. Alternatively, the applicant contended the $15\%$ permanent disability rating was too low, citing *Almaraz/Guzman* regarding disparities between AMA Guides impairment ratings and actual employability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, agreeing the medical record needed further development under *Almaraz/Guzman*, and deferred the permanent disability issue for trial level review. A dissenting opinion argued the applicant waived the AMA Guides impairment issue by not raising it earlier.

WCABRedwood Credit UnionZenith Insurance CompanyUnited States Fire Insurance Co.cumulative traumapermanent disability rating schedule2005 PDRS1997 PDRSLabor Code section 4061Labor Code section 4660
References
11
Case No. ADJ2786471 (AHM 0131183)
Regular
Feb 12, 2013

RENEGARCIA vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM, PRESSURE

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award due to the physician's flawed methodology in determining permanent disability. The physician improperly used the *Almaraz/Guzman* analysis by considering both functional capacity and ability to compete in the labor market. Furthermore, the physician's supplemental report failed to correct this error and used speculative cumulative losses. The matter is returned for a new rating strictly applying the AMA Guides.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of AnaheimRene GarciaReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaLeft KneeRight KneeBack Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ6571055
Regular
Mar 11, 2010

GERMAN QUIROGA vs. YANKEE CANDLE COMPANY, TRAVELERS ORANGE

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration but granted the defendant's. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the trial level for a decision on permanent disability benefits. This action was taken because the applicant failed to adequately develop the record regarding an *Almaraz-Guzman* analysis, despite having ample opportunity. Therefore, the permanent disability finding should be based on the existing medical reports from the conclusion of the prior trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award OrderIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineCandle MakerPermanent DisabilityPermanent and StationaryAlmaraz-GuzmanSupplemental Report
References
1
Case No. ADJ8599111
Regular
May 24, 2018

PAUL CHIN vs. EVEREST COLLEGE, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision grants reconsideration and affirms the applicant's award of 53% permanent disability, with adjustments for benefits paid and attorney fees. The Board rejected the defendant's attempt to challenge the *Almaraz/Guzman III* analysis, finding it was raised too late. The Board also refused to consider the defendant's supplemental pleading. The award is finalized with jurisdiction reserved for any disputes regarding benefit adjustments.

Petition for ReconsiderationAlmaraz/Guzman III analysisPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMEPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAttorney FeeAppeals Board Rule 10848Supplemental PleadingTimely Manner
References
1
Case No. ADJ773007 (MON 0355112)
Regular
Nov 19, 2018

PAUL LOGAN vs. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES; administered by ACE USA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of 24% permanent disability for a cumulative trauma injury. The Board rejected the applicant's argument to rely on the Agreed Medical Examiner's *Almaraz/Guzman* analysis, deeming it unsubstantiated and not within the AMA Guides. The Board also denied a requested 15% increase for failure to offer work and found no basis for a 100% permanent disability award. The Board's final order affirmed the original WCJ decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPaul LoganGreyhound LinesInc.Gallagher Bassett ServicesACE USAcumulative traumacervical spineleft shoulderleft wrist
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 385 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