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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. SAC 306565, SAC 306566, SAC 310519
Regular
Mar 18, 2008

GILBERT A. JONES, SR. vs. TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY LIVING CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injuries in 2001 and 2002. The WCJ initially ruled to combine all injuries under the Wilkinson Doctrine for permanent disability, but the defendant sought reconsideration. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision except for the findings on permanent disability and apportionment, remanding these issues for further development and application of the Benson decision, which replaced the Wilkinson Doctrine with a causation-based apportionment regime.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentWilkinson DoctrineLabor Code Sections 4663Labor Code Sections 4664Brodie DecisionFuentes DecisionBenson Decision
References
4
Case No. LBO 0340807
En Banc
Jun 17, 2005

LISA SIMMONS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board holds that a utilization review report is admissible for the limited purpose of showing a dispute over industrial causation has arisen, but not to determine causation itself; the defendant must then follow the AME/QME process to resolve the causation dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionUtilization ReviewMedical NecessityCausationLabor Code section 4610Labor Code section 4062Agreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical Evaluator
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. ADJ10788598
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

Shanai King vs. Food 4 Less

This case involves a claimant alleging a psychiatric injury due to workplace stress. The administrative law judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding the applicant's testimony not credible and the medical evaluations insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. This decision stems from deficiencies in the medical evaluator's analysis of causation, conflating injury causation with permanent disability causation, and the need to develop the medical record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPsyche InjuryQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial CausationPredominant CauseGood Faith Personnel ActionSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
7
Case No. ADJ1411734 (MON 0361062) MF ADJ130407 (MON 0361061) ADJ4416246 (MON 0361065) ADJ1320492 (MON 0361064) ADJ3297635 (MON 0361063) ADJ7166968 ADJ8574761 ADJ9019769 ADJ9045920
Regular
Jul 28, 2017

MARTHA IBRAHIM vs. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the defendant's contention that the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) did not properly address causation and apportionment of the applicant's permanent disability. The Board found that the AME reports lacked substantial evidence regarding causation and apportionment across the applicant's multiple claimed injuries. Consequently, the Board rescinded the previous award and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record in compliance with relevant Labor Code sections and case law. The goal is to ensure proper determination of disability causation and apportionment among the various industrial injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentCausationPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4663Benson v. The Permanente Medical GroupInextricably Intertwined
References
7
Case No. ADJ11026657
Regular
Feb 27, 2020

Monnie Wright vs. California Public Employees' Retirement System, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the finding that collateral estoppel prevents them from determining industrial causation for applicant Monnie Wright's injury under Government Code section 21166. A prior jury found Wright's injury arose out of employment but not in the course of employment. The WCAB has jurisdiction to determine industrial causation for CalPERS disability claims, applying procedural rules and factual findings. However, collateral estoppel, being a hybrid substantive/procedural issue, means the prior jury's determination on "arising out of" but not "in the course of" employment precludes the WCAB from making a new finding of industrial causation (AOE/COE).

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEMLegally UninsuredSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDClaims AdministratorOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONGovernment Code section 21166collateral estoppelindustrial causationarising out of and in the course of employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McHeffey v. International Talc Co.

A claimant with pneumoconiosis, stemming from two decades of talc dust exposure with his former employer, was denied disability benefits by the board. The board cited that his disability was employment-related and his workers' compensation claim was controverted on multiple grounds, not solely causation. The court affirmed the board's decision regarding the claimant's disqualification from benefits due to the disability's causal link to employment. However, it clarified that under Workmen's Compensation Law § 206(2), disability benefits are payable even when a workers' compensation claim is controverted on additional grounds besides causation, emphasizing the statute's purpose to alleviate economic hardship during litigation of causation.

PneumoconiosisOccupational DiseaseDisability BenefitsCausal RelationStatutory InterpretationEconomic HardshipUnemployment BenefitsLien RightsBoard Decision AppealEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ephedra Products Liability Litigation

Plaintiff Sharon Stafford sued Universal Nutrition Corp. (UNC), MTM Marketing and Consulting Inc. (MTM), and Robert Michnal, alleging their ephedra product, ThermoSlim, caused her 2002 stroke. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contesting causation and personal jurisdiction, and seeking to exclude the testimony of treating neurologist Dr. Wesley Dennis. The court denied the summary judgment motions, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to infer causation under Texas law, which governs the case. The court also found personal jurisdiction over all defendants. Dr. Dennis's specific causation opinion was admitted, though other opinions were excluded.

toxic tortephedraThermoSlimstrokecausationsummary judgmentexpert testimonyDaubertpersonal jurisdictioncorporate veil
References
10
Case No. ADJ7143993
Regular
Jun 29, 2015

GILBERT ORTIZ vs. CITY OF FULLERTON; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered By ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior order, finding that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to determine industrial causation for a Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) disability retirement. The stipulated workers' compensation award was expressly limited and the Labor Code section 3212 presumption is inapplicable to PERS matters. Furthermore, the Board found the agreed medical examiner's opinions too speculative and lacking in substantial evidence to establish causation for the disability retirement claim. The case is remanded for further development of the record to determine industrial causation under the correct legal standard without the section 3212 presumption.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGilbert OrtizCity of Fullertonheart injuryindustrial causationres judicatacollateral estoppelstipulated awardAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Gerald Markovitz
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 816 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