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. 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
3
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
0
Case No. ADJ8197646
Regular
Feb 19, 2013

GUADALUPE FIERRO vs. BURLINGTON HOMES, BILTMORE PROPERTIES; YORK RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an industrial injury claim. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and that the claim was not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). However, the Board amended the original decision to strike all references to specific injured body parts. This amendment allows for further development of the record to determine which body parts were actually injured in the July 7, 2011 incident.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGuadalupe FierroBurlington HomesBiltmore PropertiesYork Risk ServicesADJ8197646Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardWCJindustrial injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ10426664
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

BEHDAD SEPANJ vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the award, but affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board found the applicant's testimony credible regarding his commute, rejecting the defendant's "going and coming" rule defense. However, the Board agreed with the defendant that the initial award's specific list of injured body parts was premature. The amended award lists the specific injured body parts as spleen, left shoulder, chest, back, left scapula, ribs, pelvis, and right knee.

going and coming ruletransportation engineermotor vehicle accidenturological systemsneurological systemshead injuryright eye injurysplenectomyhospital discharge summarycredibility determination
References
1
Case No. ADJ2253765 (VNO 0561741)
Regular
Mar 17, 2017

MAKE NEHDAR vs. WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The applicant, Mike Nehdar, sought to correct the description of injured body parts in a May 16, 2013 Opinion and Order. The original WCAB decision had rescinded a previous administrative law judge's finding and substituted its own. The applicant correctly identified a clerical error in the substituted finding regarding the specific body parts injured. The WCAB granted reconsideration to correct this clerical error, affirming its prior decision but amending the finding to accurately reflect the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaInjury AOE/COEClerical ErrorPetition to Correct Clerical ErrorLower ExtremitiesNeurological
References
4
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
16
Case No. CV-23-1472
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jacquetta Brooks

Claimant Jacquetta Brooks appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled she was entitled to a 0% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her right arm, leg, and foot. This decision reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's award of higher SLU percentages. The core of the dispute was the Board's interpretation of guidelines regarding the appropriateness of comparing injured body parts to previously injured contralateral (opposite) body parts for SLU assessment. The Appellate Division found the Board's interpretation, which limited inappropriate comparisons only to permanent contralateral impairments, to be unreasonable. The Court reversed the Board's decision, finding that temporary physical or functional impairments also make contralateral comparisons inappropriate, and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseContralateral ComparisonMedical Impairment GuidelinesOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewRemittalRange of MotionJudicial InterpretationPermanent Impairment
References
12
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
0
Case No. 03-15-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Elite Auto Body LLC, D/B/A Precision Auto Body Rey R. Hernandez Yesica Diaz And David Damian v. Autocraft Body Works, Inc., Now Known as Wasson Road Ventures, Inc. D/B/A Autocraft Bodywerks

The Appellants, Elite Auto Body LLC, Rey R. Hernandez, Yesica Diaz, and David Damian, are appealing a trial court's order that denied their Motion to Dismiss. This motion was filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) against claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by Appellee Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc. Appellants contend that the trial court erred by narrowly construing the TCPA, failing to recognize that their communications regarding business practices and employee recruitment are protected under rights of association and free speech. They also argue that Autocraft failed to provide sufficient 'clear and specific evidence' to establish a prima facie case for its claims, which is a requirement under the TCPA. Consequently, Appellants are seeking a reversal of the trial court's order, dismissal of Autocraft's claims, and an award for their attorneys' fees and expenses.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechAppellate ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Denco CS Corporation v. Body Bar, LLC

Body Bar, LLC sued Denco CS Corporation after Denco filed mechanic's liens on property leased by Body Bar, leading the new property owner, Bre Throne Preston Park, LLC, to withhold a $25,000 tenant improvement reimbursement. Body Bar sought declaratory relief, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference, and Denco counterclaimed for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Body Bar, invalidating the liens and finding Denco liable for breach of contract and tortious interference, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidity of Denco's liens and the dismissal of Denco's claims but reversed the findings of Body Bar's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, and the $25,000 damage award, remanding these issues for further proceedings due to insufficient evidence of damages.

Contract disputeMechanic's lienStatutory lienConstitutional lienTortious interferenceBreach of contractQuantum meruitUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentReal property
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 6,301 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