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. ADJ8750816
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

KAMIKA BEASLEY vs. SECURITAS, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing the prior denial of a change of venue. The applicant demonstrated good cause by residing in Vallejo, her injury occurring in Sacramento, and no longer having an attorney in the original Anaheim venue. Therefore, the case venue was changed to the Oakland district office, and the trial was continued.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgePetition to Change VenuePetition for Change of VenueGood CauseMandatory Settlement ConferenceApplication for Adjudication of ClaimIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. VNO 348369 VNO 348370 VNO 348371 VNO 348372
Regular
Feb 13, 2008

RUBEN C. GONZALEZ vs. L.A.C.M.T.A.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied LACMTA's Petition for Removal, adopting the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report. The WCJ recommended denial because LACMTA failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and the medical record needed further development regarding the applicant's new diabetes diagnosis and its potential industrial relation. Therefore, the petition was formally denied by the WCAB.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLACMTAMedical Record DevelopmentDiabetes DiagnosisIndustrially Related ConditionReasonable Medical ProbabilityPetition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843Significant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ11509125, ADJ11509591, ADJ13194436
Regular
Dec 15, 2020

ALEX MEJIA vs. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, CORVEL

The Appeals Board granted Lineage Logistics' petition for removal, rescinding an order that changed venue for claim ADJ13194436 to Long Beach. The Board found the record procedurally confused, noting conflicting actions by different district offices and an order that incorrectly stated parties jointly agreed to the venue change despite an objection. The matter is returned to the trial level to address consolidation and proper venue for all three applicant claims.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueConsolidation of ClaimsProcedural ConfusionAdjudication NumbersDistrict OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaPetition to ConsolidateNotice of Intention to Change Venue
References
Case No. VNO 0386181
Regular
Apr 05, 2007

SUSAN PASCALE vs. BLUE CROSS/WELLPOINT DENTAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION on behalf of FREMONT INDEMNITY

This case concerns applicant Susan Pascale's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to industrial injuries resulting in fibromyalgia and other conditions. The WCJ awarded 80% permanent disability, apportioning 20% to applicant's pre-existing personality traits based on medical opinions. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding the apportionment was supported by substantial medical evidence of causation, as allowed by recent statutory changes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusan PascaleBlue Cross/Wellpoint DentalCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont IndemnityVNO 0386181Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationApplicantDefendantWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ7187453
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

PASCUALA GODOY vs. JACK IN THE BOX, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's order. The judge allowed a 60-day continuance for the applicant to obtain a current physician's report on a potential change in condition. The defendant's contentions, including claims of denied due process due to improper service of a Declaration of Readiness and insufficient grounds for further surgery, were rejected. The Board found no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportAgreed Medical ExaminerDeclaration of ReadinessDefective ServicePermanent and StationaryChange in ConditionFurther SurgeryPre-Trial Conference
References
Case No. ADJ9128603
Regular
Sep 17, 2018

GAYLYNN DEWEY vs. OBJECT GEOMETRIES, INC., ONE BEACON INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award of 24/7 home health care for six months and returned the case for further proceedings. The WCAB found the record incomplete regarding the justification for a new Request for Authorization (RFA) for home health care, given a prior Independent Medical Review (IMR) had authorized it indefinitely. The WCAB will require the trial judge to determine why the new RFA was issued, whether applicant's condition changed, and if the defendant properly terminated services under the principles of *Patterson v. The Oaks Farm*.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewHome Health CarePost-Concussion SyndromeConversion DisorderActivities of Daily LivingRequest for AuthorizationFindings and AwardPatterson v. the Oaks Farm
References
Case No. ADJ12632885
Regular
May 06, 2025

Odilio Velasquez vs. Blue Core Construction, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund

Applicant Odilio Velasquez sustained an industrial injury to his head, brain, neck, and back. The defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) that mandated the continuation of home health care services for the applicant. The defendant argued that its provision of services was utilization review-mandated and the case law relied upon by the WCJ, Patterson, only applied to unilateral decisions to offer medical treatment. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the defendant failed to establish a change in the applicant's condition or circumstances to cease previously authorized treatment, affirming that the Patterson analysis applied.

PattersonUtilization ReviewHome Health CareChange in ConditionPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Labor Code Section 4600Independent Medical ReviewRequest for AuthorizationFindings and Award
References
Case No. ADJ7006379
Regular
Sep 04, 2014

RAMAN KUMAR vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Sears Holding Corporation sought to terminate liability for home healthcare services, challenging a prior WCJ order that found no good cause to do so. The original order, based on a stipulation, required reimbursement for up to 10 hours per week of home healthcare at $15/hour. The defendant's petition was denied because the prior order was deemed final and res judicata, predating SB 863's amendments to home healthcare provisions. The defendant failed to demonstrate good cause, such as a change in the applicant's medical condition, to modify or terminate the existing award. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, emphasizing that the burden is on the defendant to show why the services are no longer needed, a burden not met here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrdersHome Healthcare ServicesPetition to Terminate LiabilityUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationFinal OrderGood CauseSB863
References
Case No. ADJ7148195
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

KARIN SMITH vs. MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for applicant's back surgery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, affirmed the award, and corrected a clerical error in the case number. The WCAB found that while an initial surgery request was denied via Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR), the applicant's treating physician later submitted a new request supported by documented changes in material facts, including new neurological symptoms and an MRI showing critical stenosis and potential cauda equina syndrome. Because the second request indicated an imminent and serious threat to the applicant's health and was based on new medical evidence, the 12-month UR decision validity period did not apply.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610(k)Documented Change in ConditionLumbar Spine SurgeryNurseCauda Equina Syndrome
References
Case No. ADJ10149777
Regular
Dec 31, 2015

TIMOTHY PRATT vs. SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, upholding a prior order changing the venue from Oakland to Redding. The change was granted because the applicant resides in Grass Valley, and the Redding District Office is the closest Appeals Board office to that location. The applicant failed to demonstrate factual prejudice stemming from the venue change. Therefore, the original venue change order is affirmed.

Petition for RemovalVenue ChangeLabor Code Section 5501.5Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOakland District OfficeRedding District OfficeApplicant ResidenceAttorney Principal Place of BusinessCumulative Trauma
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,284 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