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. ADJ1142998
Regular
May 29, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the original decision which denied the applicant's claim for avascular necrosis of the right hip as a compensable consequence of a prior industrial injury. The Board found the original decision was not supported by substantial medical evidence, specifically finding the reliance on Dr. Glancz's report to be erroneous and speculative. Dr. Barber's reports, however, were deemed substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim that the fall and subsequent gait issues significantly impacted his right hip condition. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequenceindustrial injuryright hipleft lower extremitymedical treatmentQualified Medical Examiner (QME)substantial evidenceopinionreconsideration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 1988

Claim of Edmondson v. State Insurance Fund

The claimant, a payroll clerk, sustained a left hip injury after tripping at work in 1981, leading to multiple surgeries including a hip fusion and removal of the femoral head and neck, resulting in an 80% schedule loss of use of her left leg. The employer sought to apportion the disability due to a preexisting condition of avascular necrosis and a prior hip injury. However, the Workers' Compensation Board determined the 80% schedule loss was solely related to the compensable accident, a finding affirmed on appeal based on medical testimony that the orthopedic surgeon opined the preexisting condition was nondisabling and not progressive at the time of the accident.

Workers' CompensationHip InjurySchedule Loss of UseAvascular NecrosisApportionmentPreexisting ConditionMedical TestimonyOrthopedic SurgeryCausationState Insurance Fund
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Banner v. Anheuser-Busch Companies

Claimant, a forklift operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for right knee and left hip injuries sustained in December 2005. After an initial award, the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded benefits, concluding that the disabling hip condition (avascular necrosis of the left femoral head) was not causally related to the work injury, based on an impartial specialist's report and other medical testimony. On appeal, the Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions on causation was supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found that the omission of claimant's testimony minutes was not reversible error, as the Board had ample medical evidence to consider.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausationAvascular NecrosisHip InjuryKnee InjuryConflicting Medical OpinionsSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ1142998 (RDG 0118288)
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had previously rescinded a finding that avascular necrosis was not a compensable consequence of the applicant's injury, finding the relied-upon medical opinion speculative. The defendant argues the WCJ correctly favored the opinion of Dr. Glancz over Dr. Barber. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reaffirming that Dr. Glancz's opinion was not substantial evidence due to repeated questioning of the injury mechanism, while Dr. Barber's opinion was persuasive and based on a complete history. Therefore, the WCAB maintained its prior decision that Dr. Barber's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequencesubstantial evidencemedical opinionworkers' compensation administrative law judgereconsiderationfindings and ordermedical treatmentindustrial basissubstantial evidence
References
1
Showing 1-4 of 4 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