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. GOL 96757
Regular
Jun 10, 2008

SA YANG LO vs. CUSTOM SENSORS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award, upholding the application of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board found that exceptions allowing for the 1997 Schedule did not apply, as the applicant's temporary disability indemnity extended beyond January 1, 2005, and no qualifying pre-2005 reports indicated permanent disability. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion regarding diminished future earning capacity unpersuasive, thus affirming the initial 9% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSA Yang LoCustom Sensors & TechnologiesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundGOL 96757Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ2073428 (VNO 0465400) ADJ1610465 (VNO 0540972) ADJ3247765 (VNO 00384869)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

JAY ZAVERI vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; Legally Uninsured

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, arguing for a 100% permanent disability rating and challenging the permanent disability start date used for attorney fee commutation. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence to establish total permanent disability, as the applicant was currently employed and medical opinions did not definitively support such a rating. The Board also ruled that the applicant waived arguments regarding the rating of specific injuries by failing to properly object, and that even if considered, separate ratings for back, knee, and plantar fasciitis conditions would not result in a higher award due to fibromyalgia being the primary cause and rating higher. Finally, the Board clarified that the July 2, 2000 date was only relevant to the attorney fee commutation calculation and not to the determination of permanent disability indemnity payments.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuryBack InjuryHip InjuryBilateral Knee InjuryBilateral Foot InjuryBilateral Plantar Fasciitis
References
Case No. ADJ3496977 (AHM 0123782) ADJ4522580 (AHM 0123784) ADJ285268 (AHM 0123786) ADJ3502821 (AHM 0123784)
Regular
May 24, 2010

CARL DIXON vs. PHILLIPS BUICK, PONTIAC & MAZDA, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration sua sponte due to the WCJ's failure to make an express finding on the date of injury in one case and contradictory findings in others despite party stipulations. The Board also rescinded the decision concerning utilization review as it conflicted with current case law. Due to significant procedural and substantive defects in the applicant's petition, including improper filing and a non-attorney preparing the document without disclosure, the Board is providing notice of its intention to impose sanctions on applicant's counsel. The matters are returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decision.

WCABReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderBody shop technicianIndustrial injuryLow backLeft shoulderBilateral wristsBilateral handsPetition for reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ6705178
Regular
Aug 07, 2014

JOSE MORALES vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant Payless Shoesource's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The defendant sought to challenge the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's bilateral lower extremities and right upper extremity. The petition was filed 29 days after the August 7, 2014 Opinion and Decision, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline for reconsideration. Even if timely, the Board indicated it would have been denied on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Dismissing PetitionIndustrial InjuryBilateral Lower ExtremitiesRight Upper ExtremityLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post Termination DefenseUntimely PetitionJurisdictional Deadline
References
Case No. POM 0261983
Regular
Feb 08, 2009

SARA LARA vs. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE/BROADSPIRE

The lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision that reduced their billed costs for applicant's medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the judge's finding that the billed costs were unreasonable and that the lien claimant failed to present a persuasive case supporting their charges. The Board also found no evidence of a violation of Labor Code section 4603.2 regarding timely reimbursement.

Kunz v. PattersonWCABLien claimantAmended Findings of FactReasonable and necessary costsBilled costs unreasonableStipulations with Request for AwardIndustrial injuryBilateral upper extremitiesNeck injury
References
Case No. ADJ924878 (LAO 0883182)
Regular
Nov 12, 2019

ROSARIO VALDEZ vs. ATLANTIC EXPRESS OF L.A. INC., Administered By LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, amending a prior award. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's bilateral ankles and knees and the award of further medical treatment, including surgery. However, the Board modified the award of temporary disability benefits to comply with the 104-week limitation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1), starting from the date temporary disability payments commence.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardbus driverbilateral anklesbilateral kneestemporary disabilityEmployment Development DepartmentEDD lienfurther medical treatmentleft knee surgery
References
Case No. ADJ10014571
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

FERNANDO SANCHEZ vs. PACIFIC ALLOY CASTING COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award finding applicant sustained industrial injuries to his knees, spine, and upper extremities. The defendant argued the claim was barred by the post-termination defense under Labor Code §3600(a)(10). However, the Board found the applicant's brief absences for pain did not constitute "compensable disability" prior to termination, thus triggering an exception to the defense. Therefore, the applicant's date of injury was determined to be subsequent to termination notice, and the claim is not barred.

post-termination defenseLabor Code §3600(a)(10)date of injurysection 5412compensable disabilitytemporary disabilitypermanent disabilitycumulative traumaorthopedic panel QMEbilateral knees
References
Case No. ADJ8330411
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

LARRY SINGLETARY vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Paramount Pictures' petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. Paramount argued the ALJ erred by applying a 50% WPI for the applicant's right lower extremity, instead of 30%, based on conflicting reports from an agreed medical examiner. The ALJ found the evidence insufficient to prove the applicant could walk more than a "block" without a walker, which was the key factor in the different WPI ratings. The WCAB gave great weight to the ALJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to overturn them.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent disabilityWPIRight lower extremityOrthopedic AMESpecific date of injury
References
Case No. ADJ14263093
Regular
Apr 12, 2023

CECILIA OJEDA vs. AMY'S KITCHEN, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The applicant claimed cumulative injury to her neck, bilateral wrists, shoulders, and upper extremities, which the employer initially denied for all body parts except the neck. The WCJ found injury to all claimed body parts, relying on treating physicians' reports, and found the QME's reports unsubstantial due to inconsistencies and admissions of uncertainty during deposition. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the QME's opinion was substantial evidence regarding injured body parts and permanent disability. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the QME's testimony was too speculative and contradictory to constitute substantial evidence for the disputed body parts.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardOrthopedic Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Substantial EvidenceCumulative InjuryBilateral WristsBilateral ShouldersBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCervical Radiculopathy
References
Case No. ADJ9767947
Regular
Jan 18, 2017

GILBERT PEREZ vs. ABC SHEET METAL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injury to his left knee and abdomen. The trial judge initially found injury to these parts but also found no injury to back, psyche, lower extremities, and stress, which the applicant appealed. The appellate court annulled the denial of reconsideration, finding the trial judge improperly ruled on body parts not fully at issue. The Appeals Board rescinded the negative finding, deferred the issue of additional injured body parts, and remanded for further proceedings to determine if injury to other parts occurred.

WCABindustrial injurywelderleft kneeabdomenbackpsychelower extremitiesstressCourt of Appeal
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,558 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