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

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. 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. 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. ADJ5836774
Regular
Nov 04, 2015

Benjamin Mesanovic vs. Specialty Termite, National Liability and Fire Insurance Company

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying his claim to rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The applicant argued his diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) was greater than the PDRS accounted for, citing vocational expert testimony. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding the applicant failed to prove his industrial injury precluded vocational rehabilitation, a requirement to rebut the PDRS. The WCAB concluded that the applicant's vocational expert's opinion did not meet the legal standards for rebuttal as established in *Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco*.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityPDRSOgilvie IIIVocational RehabilitationRebuttalAMA GuidesPermanent DisabilityApportionmentIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
3
Case No. ADJ2068970 (STK 0167616)
Regular
Aug 20, 2015

Norman McAtee vs. Briggs & Pearson Construction, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the Administrative Director's prior Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was based on plainly erroneous findings of fact. The Board concluded that the IMR wrongly stated there was no documentation of improved function or reduced pain with the applicant's Duragesic patches, citing medical reports and applicant testimony to the contrary. Therefore, the IMR decision was rescinded, the applicant's appeal was granted, and the treatment dispute was remanded for a new IMR.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.6(h)Plainly Erroneous Findings of FactAdministrative DirectorDuragesicOpioid AnalgesicsPermanent DisabilityMedical Treatment
References
0
Case No. ADJ6661819
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

ALVIN WALLS vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. However, the WCAB granted reconsideration on its own motion and rescinded the prior decision. The applicant claims three permanent disability checks were forged and that he never received them, but the WCAB found the applicant's initial proof insufficient. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings, including obtaining expert testimony on handwriting and potential electronic deposit issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability ChecksForgeryHandwriting ExpertUniform Commercial CodeBurden of ProofPrima Facie ShowingElectronic DepositFelony Prosecution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7079255
Regular
Nov 28, 2014

ANA LILIA GARCIA vs. VMI JEANSWEAR, INCORPORATED, FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings. The ALJ found the applicant's testimony regarding her injury to be unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence, including employer testimony and medical reports. Medical evidence was deemed not substantial because it relied on an inaccurate history of the applicant's job duties and symptoms. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the applicant failed to prove an industrial injury based on the lack of credible testimony and substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDenying ReconsiderationCredibility FindingAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryMedical EvidenceInconsistent TestimonySubstantial EvidenceRebuttal EvidenceWCJ Report
References
2
Case No. ADJ8574770
Regular
Jan 04, 2018

GEORGE ASAAD vs. ORACLE CORPORATION, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. While the applicant's petition was found to be timely filed, removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning that compelling the employer to reveal employee contact information for trial testimony was unwarranted. The WCJ found the proposed witness testimony was likely duplicative and irrelevant to the medical determination of industrial causation, and the applicant could present his own testimony regarding job duties.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationOrder to CompelEmployee WitnessesCo-workersSubpoena
References
2
Case No. ADJ6662275
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

DARRIN BEAN vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a skin cancer injury. The applicant contests the testimony of an independent medical expert, Dr. Brigham, who offered an opinion on his impairment rating that differed from the agreed medical evaluator's (AME). The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, ruling that Dr. Brigham's testimony was inadmissible as he was neither an AME nor a treating physician and his testimony was not in rebuttal to formal rating instructions. Consequently, Dr. Brigham's testimony was stricken, the prior order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings based solely on admissible medical evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent Disability RatingClass 1 ImpairmentClass 2 ImpairmentClass 3 ImpairmentMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRebuttal Testimony
References
4
Case No. ADJ7945624
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

JUAN SANTA CRUZ vs. MARTIN RUBBER, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision. The applicant claimed injury from continuous trauma as a machine operator but provided inconsistent testimony regarding lifting weights. The employer's testimony contradicted the applicant's account of his duties and lifting requirements. The Board found the applicant's testimony less credible, affirmed the judge's findings, and denied the petition for reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportcredibilityGarza v.Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.industrial injurycontinuous traumamachine operatorPetitioner's Contentionsfraud
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 14,641 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