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. VNO 0438915
Regular
Oct 23, 2008

Applicant vs. University of Southern California

This case concerns an applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying injury claims against the University of Southern California (USC). The applicant alleged a physical altercation with his supervisor, Mr. Pickering, during a meeting on September 20, 2001, which he claims caused various injuries. However, the WCJ found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony and failure to report the incident promptly. The WCJ relied on testimony from witnesses who stated Mr. Pickering merely touched the applicant's shoulders and noted the applicant's history of prior injuries and medical issues not fully disclosed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiological Safety Specialistspecific injuryanimositycredibility issuesshoulder touchingprior injurieshypertension
References
0
Case No. ADJ6586259
Regular
May 17, 2010

Ramon Navarro vs. Landscape Specialists, Inc./Artistic Maintenance Landscaping, Inc., IWC Group

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a decision that found he did not prove a work-related injury. The applicant's testimony regarding the time, location, and manner of his alleged injury was inconsistent and contradicted by his phone records and the credible testimony of a defense witness. The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant not credible, and the Board affirmed this finding, stating the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board specifically gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCredibilityGeneral LaborerGardenerBack InjuryLeft Lower Extremity InjurySleep DisorderSexual DysfunctionImpeachment
References
2
Case No. ADJ7430217
Regular
May 17, 2012

LETICIA FLORES vs. RABOBANK; CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the applicant's claim for injuries sustained from continuous trauma at Rabobank. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's orthopedic injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, relying heavily on the credible testimony of the applicant and the persuasive report of the Agreed Medical Examiner. Despite the defendant's arguments regarding lack of prior medical complaints and other activities, the WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and the Agreed Medical Examiner's findings sufficient to support an award of temporary disability benefits. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, extending great weight to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerInjury AOE/COEContinuous TraumaTemporary DisabilityCredibility FindingLabor Code Section 3202.5Liberal ConstructionPreponderance of Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ6688237
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

Celina Acevedo vs. William Sanchez-Barrera, UEF

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found applicant Celina Acevedo was not an employee of William Sanchez-Barrera. The Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) credibility finding against the applicant was central to the decision. The ALJ found the applicant's testimony regarding her employment and the severity of her claimed injury lacked credibility, while the defense witness's testimony was deemed credible. Therefore, the board adopted the ALJ's report and recommendations.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportCredibility FindingEmployment RelationshipHousekeeperInjury AOE/COEWitness TestimonyEmployment RecordsApplicant Credibility
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travell v. Travell

Petitioner appealed Family Court's decision to dismiss his applications for relief from child support payments and commitment, and to grant the Support Collection Unit's applications for orders of commitment. Petitioner claimed inability to work due to a neck injury and major depression. Medical testimony from Dr. Bruce Russell, a family physician, and Kelly Farnan, a psychiatric nurse practitioner, supported his claims, but their opinions relied heavily on petitioner's subjective reports of pain. Family Court found petitioner's testimony contradictory regarding his disability, noting his ability to drive, perform household work, and care for his child. The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court's decision, deferring to its credibility assessment of the petitioner's disability claims.

Child Support EnforcementFamily Court ProceedingsParental ObligationsMedical DisabilityWorkers' Compensation ClaimSocial Security DisabilityCredibility DeterminationCervical RadiculopathyMajor DepressionPsychiatric Evaluation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. ADJ14871067
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

EDGAR GAMA vs. XTRACTOR DEPOT, LLC, 2020 LONG BEACH, LLC, THE HARTFORD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the applicant was an employee of Xtractor Depot, LLC. The Board gave significant weight to the judge's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it. The Board also noted the petitioner's improper attachment of exhibits to their petition. Ultimately, the applicant's credible testimony and unrebutted exhibits supported the original finding of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsideration DeniedWCJ Credibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Ostensible AuthorityEmployee StatusXtractor Depot LLCAndrew YoonCannabis IndustryWarehouse Explosion
References
4
Case No. ADJ2505068
Regular
May 28, 2013

MARIA FREITAS vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied SaveMart Supermarkets' petition for reconsideration of an award finding the applicant's right leg injury to be a compensable consequence of her industrial back injury. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible, supported by medical opinions noting prior leg weakness and difficulty walking. The judge found that a contemporaneous surgeon's report, which stated the applicant missed a step, was less persuasive than the applicant's consistent testimony and supporting medical evidence. The WCAB upheld the judge's credibility determination and the finding that the leg injury was causally related to the admitted back injury.

Compensable Consequence InjuryCredibility FindingWCJ Report AdoptionTibia FractureCumulative Back InjuryMechanism of InjuryLower Extremity WeaknessAntalgic GaitSworn TestimonyMedical Opinion
References
1
Case No. ADJ7474522
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

ANTOIAN GRIFFIN vs. HENKELS & McCOY, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a back injury. The applicant's credibility was questioned due to inconsistencies in his testimony and prior undisclosed injuries. The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and was unsupported by the medical record. Consequently, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof, and the Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration, upholding the judge's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.AOE/COEindustrial injuryday laborertruck driver's licenseprior work injuries
References
1
Case No. ADJ3005224 (STK 0185309)
Regular
Jul 02, 2010

MARIO GONZALEZ vs. STANLEY VANDERVEEN/VMV HULLING LLC, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an applicant's petition. The applicant sought to establish employment with various entities or individuals after sustaining injuries from falling off a tractor. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the applicant's testimony to be not credible and lacked substantial evidence of employment. The judge found the testimony of Stanley Vanderveen and David Corona to be more credible.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ ReportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Applicant CredibilityEmployment StatusSubcontractorIndependent ContractorVMV Hulling LLC
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 15,077 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