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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ2904305 (GOL 0095697) ADJ1827151 (GOL 0095698)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

GUADALUPE CARRILLO vs. SAN ANTONIO VILLAGE HOA, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding a disallowed lien balance of $9,349.46. The claimant, a doctor, failed to obtain required written authorization for work hardening services billed under CPT Code 97545. Despite a claim of verbal authorization and a general request for multiple modalities, the Board found the lack of specific written authorization for the disputed services to be determinative. Therefore, the administrative law judge's disallowance of the lien balance was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWork hardeningWork conditioningCPT Code 97545Prior authorizationVerbal authorizationWritten authorization
References
Case No. MON 0325089 MON 0325090
Regular
Oct 05, 2007

NORA MEDEARIS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns the denial of an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The applicant sought further temporary disability benefits beyond the 104-week limit imposed by Labor Code § 4656(c)(1). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the applicant failed to prove equitable estoppel against the defendant's application of the statutory limit, despite the defendant's initial refusal to authorize shoulder surgery. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant did not demonstrate reliance on any conduct by the defendant that prevented her from timely pursuing authorization for the surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNora MedearisCounty of Los AngelesPermissibly Self-InsuredMON 0325089MON 0325090Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationInterim Joint Findings and AwardCentral Services TechnicianIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ7735518 ADJ7735519 ADJ7735513 ADJ7735501 ADJ7735502 ADJ7736429 ADJ7736449 ADJ7735498 ADJ7098593 ADJ7735514
Regular
Jul 29, 2014

Marialaine Tabak vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding a dispute over medical treatment authorization. The core issue was whether a Medical Provider Network (MPN) could restrict treatment to specific office locations of a listed physician. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the defendant school district properly denied authorization for treatment at an unauthorized location of an MPN physician. The MPN's explicit listing stated providers were in-network only at designated locations, and this contractual limitation was upheld. Therefore, treatment outside the approved location was at the applicant's own expense.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNPhysician locationAuthorizationSelf-procureGeographic limitExclusive rightContractual limitationsEmployer's obligationAdministrative Director's Rule
References
Case No. ADJ10896105
Regular
Mar 22, 2018

MICHAEL GHATTAS vs. O'REILLY AUTO PARTS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employer must authorize requested medical treatment for a denied workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding its prior decision. The Board concluded that the employer's timely denial of the claim under Labor Code section 5402 terminated their responsibility to authorize medical treatment. Therefore, the employer was not obligated to submit the physician's request for authorization (RFA) to utilization review despite it being pending when the denial was issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order DenyingDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrderRequest for AuthorizationUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 5402Claim DenialMedical Treatment Authorization
References
Case No. ADJ9823935, ADJ9088024
Regular
May 20, 2016

LE VAN vs. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted FedEx's petition for reconsideration but ultimately affirmed the original order finding treatment by Monrovia Memorial Hospital reasonable and necessary. The Board clarified that even if the cervical spine was not explicitly pled as an injured body part, FedEx authorized the treatment and failed to properly rescind that authorization. Therefore, the lien claimant is entitled to payment for the services rendered.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderlien claimantMonrovia Memorial Hospitalcervical spineDr. Wilkercervical surgeryobjection letterprimary treating physician
References
Case No. ADJ3641089
Regular
Jan 25, 2018

JOHN SIGLER vs. GENERAL DYNAMICS, INC., CHARTIS INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that he failed to meet his burden of proof for penalties and sanctions. The applicant claimed unreasonable delay and bad faith regarding authorization for Synvisc injections. The Board found the Utilization Review process was timely and, even if it had been delayed by one day, it was not unreasonable, especially since the employer ultimately authorized the treatment. Additionally, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to strike an undisclosed exhibit that lacked probative value and was irrelevant to the current claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPenalties and SanctionsUnreasonable DelayTreatment AuthorizationUtilization ReviewSynvisc InjectionsPrimary Treating PhysicianRequest for AuthorizationLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 4610
References
Case No. ADJ6909910
Regular
Aug 01, 2017

GILBERTO MORALES vs. HERRICK CORP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling regarding an epidural steroid injection (ESI). The WCAB found that the defendant's initial authorization for an ESI at the C6-C7 level was not superseded by a subsequent request for a more extensive ESI by a new treating physician. The Board determined there was no documented change in the applicant's medical condition to justify further utilization review of the previously authorized C6-C7 ESI. Therefore, the defendant remains obligated to provide the C6-C7 ESI without additional utilization review.

Epidural Steroid InjectionUtilization ReviewPrior AuthorizationChange of PhysicianCervical SpineWCABPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewPrimary Treating PhysicianRequest for Authorization
References
Case No. ADJ18067229
Regular
Jul 10, 2025

RAY GUTIERREZ vs. CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC.; PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC. and PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (Defendants) regarding the continuation of home health care for applicant RAY GUTIERREZ. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to show a change in the applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify terminating previously authorized ongoing home health care, citing the principles established in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm. The decision also clarified the applicability of Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timeline for acting on reconsideration petitions, which was met by the Board. Commissioner Razo dissented, arguing Patterson should not apply due to the initial limited authorization and that a change in circumstances was evident.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Utilization ReviewPatterson v. The Oaks FarmRequest for AuthorizationChange of CircumstancesHome Health CareMedical NecessityWCJ Report
References
Case No. SJO 0237342
Regular

LINDA ONTIVEROS vs. SAVERS STORES, ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's original decision. The WCAB clarified its judicial authority and the role of WCJs in delegating those powers. Specifically, the Board ordered a correction to the heading of the WCJ's report to accurately reflect the "Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" as the decision-making body.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJJudicial AuthorityOriginal JurisdictionLab. CodeCal. Code RegsSan Jose District OfficeAdministrative Law Judge
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,018 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