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. ADJ11039762
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

ALFRED GUILING vs. GODEFELLOW BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed their Petition for Removal. The defendant argued the judge's finding of injury to specific body parts was premature and lacked substantial evidence, as the PQME process was incomplete. The Board found removal was inappropriate, as the injury finding is a final order subject to reconsideration. They adopted the WCJ's report, concluding the applicant met their burden of proof for industrial injury to the disputed body parts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings of Factindustrial injurybody partssubstantial evidencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluationPQMEextraordinary remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10771579
Regular
Aug 08, 2018

Gabriel Ruano vs. Mayekawa USA, SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BROADSPIRE

This case involved a worker claiming industrial injury to multiple body parts. The Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration to correct the Findings of Fact. The Board amended the Findings to accurately reflect all injured body parts, including the psyche, and removed an incorrectly listed body part. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original decision with these specified amendments.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factsubstantial evidencemedical reportsprimary treating physicianBal S. Grewal Ph.D.Report and Recommendationinjured body partspsychecervical spine
References
Case No. ADJ2012962 (SBR 0341278)
Regular
Sep 19, 2025

JOHN ENGLER vs. WALGREENS COMPANY, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center (COSC) and California Urgent Care Center (CUC) filed a Petition for Reconsideration against a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order After Remand. The WCJ's decision addressed injured body parts and limited reimbursement for services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition, citing ambiguities in the record regarding injured body parts, the industrial injury date, the substantiality of medical evidence, and procedural compliance for an absent lien claimant. The Board deferred a final decision to allow further study of the factual and legal issues, emphasizing the duty to ensure substantial justice.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order After RemandLien claimantsBody parts injuredThoracic spineLumbar spineReimbursementMedical care denialLabor Code section 5909Panel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ8533165
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

Margarito Trujillo vs. Cardenas Markets, Inc.

This case involves a worker claiming industrial injury to multiple body parts. The WCJ initially found injury only to the abdomen but applicant argued other claimed injuries were not addressed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the issues. They are rescinding the WCJ's decision and deferring the determination of injured body parts and the nature/extent of injury for further proceedings at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactInjury AOE/COELabor Code section 5402Presumption of CompensabilityMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference StatementParts of Body InjuredNature and Extent of Injury
References
Case No. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
Case No. ADJ1426823 (LAO 0827477) MF ADJ2131871 (LAO 0822426)
Regular
Dec 14, 2012

, Applicant, BASIA PUJDAK vs. , NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION;, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE, in liquidation; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a judge's award finding applicant sustained cumulative injuries to multiple body parts and was 100% permanently disabled. The Board rescinded the award due to uncertainty regarding specific injured body parts for each cumulative trauma period and the distinct liabilities of defendants SCIF and CIGA. It also ordered a 15% attorney's fee and remanded the case for a new decision clarifying liabilities and potentially including the left elbow and shoulder injuries.

CIGASCIFFremont Insuranceliquidationcumulative traumapermanent disabilityapportionmentfuture medical treatmentattorney's feesreconsideration
References
Case No. LAO 0854553
Regular
Oct 01, 2007

DANIEL A. LONG vs. RYANS EXPRESS MOTORCOACH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's temporary disability payments for a right shoulder injury terminated on February 28, 2007. The Board ruled that the surgical removal of a distal clavicle spur does not constitute an "amputation" under Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2), which requires severance of an external body part. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to extended temporary disability benefits beyond the statutory 104-week limit.

Distal clavicleAmputation exceptionSection 4656(c)(2)Temporary disability termination104-week limitation240-week limitationRight shoulder surgeryRotator cuff tearJacob Tauber M.D.Hawkins v. Amberwood Products
References
Case No. ADJ9305417, ADJ9305255
Regular
Oct 10, 2016

MAURICIA CHAVEZ vs. MOONLIGHT PACKING CORPORATION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior denial regarding the applicant's petition to reopen. While the Board denied the request to amend the injured body part from the left knee to the right knee, it granted the petition to amend the date of injury. The Board found good cause existed within the existing record to change the date of injury to January 21, 2013, based on the WCJ's own opinion and employer reporting.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenFindings and AwardDate of InjuryBody Part InjuredLabor Code Section 5803Labor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5904Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Cumulative Trauma
References
Case No. ADJ9606568
Regular
Oct 12, 2017

Rodrigo Bautista vs. SA RECYCLING, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision, amending it only to correct a clerical error regarding injured body parts. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing they were entitled to a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel due to an incorrect address being used for appointment notification to their attorney. The Board found that this de minimis error did not warrant a replacement panel, especially since the insurer received proper notice and the defendant otherwise participated in discovery with the QME. Therefore, the original finding that the defendant was not entitled to a replacement QME panel was upheld.

WCABReconsiderationQME PanelAppointment NoticeClerical ErrorDe Minimis MistakeAOE/COEFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Unit
References
Case No. VNO 0446654 VNO 0446655 VNO 0446656 VNO 0447607
Regular
Aug 18, 2008

CLARA LOSURDO vs. LAS VIRGENES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

Defendant Las Virgenes Unified School District successfully petitioned for removal, vacating a trial date and rescinding an order to proceed on three family-filed home health care liens totaling $299,500. The Board found the applicant's case, including the liens, was not ready for trial due to a lack of evidence and disclosed witnesses, and that the defendant was denied essential discovery rights. The Board remanded the case to allow for discovery on the necessity, reasonableness, and actual performance of the claimed home health care services. Furthermore, the liens will not be tried until the disputed body parts injured are resolved.

RemovalHome Healthcare LiensApplicant's RelativesDiscovery RightsReasonableness and NecessityBurden of ProofPretrial Conference StatementDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceParts of Body Injured
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,309 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