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. ADJ6924000
Regular
Mar 07, 2011

DULCE GONZALEZ vs. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ dba LA LLAMARADA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior findings, and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found that while the applicant's medical evidence was admissible due to the defendant's failure to comply with MPN notification requirements, there was no substantial medical evidence to support industrial causation. The primary treating physician's opinion was deemed conclusory, lacking a sufficient link between the described work activities and the claimed injuries. Therefore, further proceedings are required to develop the record on industrial causation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Industrial InjurySubstantial Medical EvidenceIndustrial CausationAdmissibilityLabor CodePetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. VNO 391634
Regular
Sep 07, 2007

JEFFREY AUGUSTINE vs. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS OF NORTH AMERICA, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding that the judge erred in relying on a medical examiner's report for apportionment. The Board determined that the medical evidence was insufficient to support apportionment due to its age and lack of detailed causation analysis as required by current law. The case was returned to the trial level for further development of the record, specifically requiring a panel Qualified Medical Examiner evaluation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentQualified Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityCausationSB 899Substantial EvidenceMedical HistoryProphylactic Work Restrictions
References
12
Case No. ADJ9349861
Regular
Aug 08, 2014

Ernest Millette vs. 81 Grand Holdings, Inc., dba California Rehabilitation, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, LLC on behalf of PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior award of medical care. The Board adopted the judge's report which found the defendant's arguments regarding causation and utilization review (UR) to be unsupported by evidence. The judge admonished defendant's counsel for misstating the record and noted that the defendant failed to provide a clear basis for disputing causation or denying injury benefits within the required timeframes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportSection 9792.9.1(b)(1)(C)Rule 9792.9.1(b)(1)(D)admonish counselmisstating evidencecausationspecific injuryoccupational therapist
References
1
Case No. ADJ9758397, ADJ9758401
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

JAVIER MARIN vs. INTERSTATE HOTELS, dba HILTON IRVINE, STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's attempt to remove or reconsider a finding that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish industrial causation for the applicant's injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the order to develop the record was not a final determination of substantive rights. The petition for removal was denied because a finding of industrial causation requires identification of at least one body part, which was not yet established. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning in its decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and Ordersubstantial medical evidenceindustrial causationdevelop the recordfinal ordersubstantive rightliability
References
4
Case No. SFO 384776, SFO 384777
Regular
Aug 03, 2007

ROBERT THEIN vs. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, remanding the case for further development of the record. The primary issues concern the compensability of the applicant's alleged psychiatric injury, requiring evidence to establish predominant industrial causation under Labor Code § 3208.3. Additionally, the Board requires further proceedings to clarify the permanent and stationary dates of injury and to address potential apportionment of permanent disability, particularly regarding pre-existing conditions and other accidents.

WCABReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardCommunication TechIndustrial InjuryPsycheCumulative TraumaPermanent and StationaryPermanent DisabilityOverpayment
References
3
Case No. ADJ8031613
Regular
Feb 19, 2013

PAUL SMITH vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior order finding industrial causation for retirement purposes under Government Code Section 21166. The WCAB held that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) failed to follow the "same procedure" required for workers' compensation hearings, as outlined in *Pearl v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* Specifically, no evidence was admitted, no stipulations were made, and no hearings were conducted. Therefore, there was an insufficient basis for the WCJ's determination of industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryNervous SystemInternal SystemsCorrectional OfficerCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical EvaluatorIndustrial CausationGovernment Code Section 21166Guillain-Barré Syndrome
References
1
Case No. ADJ7170278, ADJ7612162
Regular
Nov 15, 2012

ALICE HOWARD vs. CELITE CORPORATION, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's finding that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury from 2000-2008 and that the claim was not time-barred. The Board dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and affirmed that the claim is not time-barred, estopping the defendant from asserting the statute of limitations due to failure to provide required notices. However, the WCAB returned the matter to the trial level to further develop the record on industrial causation, as medical evidence is generally required for such claims.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCumulative TraumaStatute of LimitationsEstoppelIndustrial InjurySubstantial EvidencePetition for RemovalReport on RecommendationLabor Code
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,857 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