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. ADJ1940516 (GOL 0101910)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

TONY COSTANTINO (Deceased), ELLIE COSTANTINO (Widow), CIERA MILLENDER (Dependent) vs. SANTA BARBARA SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns whether a stepdaughter is entitled to the conclusive presumption of total dependency for workers' compensation death benefits under Labor Code section 3501. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award, holding that the conclusive presumption does not apply to stepchildren absent legal adoption. The Board found insufficient evidence regarding the stepdaughter's actual dependency and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record on this issue. The WCAB clarified that while stepchildren can be dependents, the specific statutory presumption of total dependency is limited to "children" under the law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitsDependencyLabor Code Section 3501Conclusive PresumptionStepchildPartial DependentReconsiderationWCJ
References
3
Case No. ADJ8621726
Regular
Jul 18, 2019

LEONARD DE LA ROSA vs. KLOECKNER TRAVELERS COMPANY OF AMERICA, USA PROPERTY AMERICA, HOLDINGS; CASUALTY

This case involves a defendant challenging a permanent total disability award for an applicant who sustained a neurological injury. The defendant argued the QME's revised opinion on causation and disability was not substantial evidence, and that Labor Code section 4662(a)(4)'s conclusive presumption of total disability violates apportionment requirements. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings. They found the QME's reporting constituted substantial evidence, and importantly, that the conclusive presumption under LC 4662(a)(4) overrides apportionment requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityLabor Code section 4662(a)(4)Permanent Mental IncapacityQualified Medical EvaluatorNeurological InjuryNeurodegenerative DisorderApportionmentLabor Code section 4663Medical Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ6761550, ADJ6761551
Regular
Dec 14, 2010

JUAN SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By CAMBRIDGE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding applicant Juan Sanchez totally and permanently disabled. This disability stemmed from a combination of industrial injuries, including a stroke, which qualified for a conclusive presumption of total disability under Labor Code section 4662(d). The defendant City of Santa Clara had argued for apportionment of this disability based on prior awards and the distinct nature of the current injuries. However, the Board found that the conclusive presumption of total disability under section 4662 precluded apportionment. The concurring opinion agreed with the outcome but differed on the strict interpretation of unapportionability, asserting that apportionment might be possible in other section 4662 cases if properly proven.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundCity of Santa Clarapermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662incurable mental incapacitystrokecumulative injuryspecific injuryapportionment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortijo v. Ilfin Corp.

A decedent, employed as a building superintendent, was found dead from a 12-gauge shotgun wound on his employer's premises during working hours. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the unexplained death, occurring on the employer's property and during working hours, raised a presumption of compensability under section 21 of the Workers' Compensation Law. This presumption led to the conclusion that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, justifying an award of death benefits to the claimant. The Board found that police testimony regarding the decedent's prior illegal activities was insufficient to rebut this statutory presumption. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding them supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPresumption of CompensabilityUnexplained DeathEmployment InjuryOn-Premises DeathStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Richman v. NYS Unified Court System

This case concerns an appeal regarding a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant suffered an unwitnessed injury at work, leading to a presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). The employer attempted to overcome this presumption with an expert's opinion suggesting the ruptured aneurysm was unrelated to employment. However, the Board found the expert's testimony not credible, particularly due to evasiveness regarding the role of work-induced stress and high blood pressure in the aneurysm's rupture. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's conclusion, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability.

Workers' CompensationAneurysmWork StressPresumption of CompensabilityExpert CredibilityUnwitnessed InjuryBlood PressureMedical OpinionBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

This case addresses whether surviving husbands are entitled to the same workmen’s compensation benefits and conclusive presumption of dependency as widows under the Tennessee Workmen’s Compensation Law. The plaintiffs, surviving husbands whose wives died in an armed robbery at work, challenged statutory provisions that denied them the presumption of dependency and limited their benefits to 20% of the deceased wife's average weekly wage, while widows received a 50% benefit. The trial court deemed these gender-based discriminations unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, particularly Wengler v. Druggist Mut. Ins. Co., which found similar provisions unconstitutional. The Court extended the same benefits and presumptions to widowers, noting a subsequent legislative amendment that equalized treatment for both sexes.

Gender discriminationEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentWidowers' rightsWorkmen's Compensation LawDependency presumptionSpousal benefitsConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationSex-based discrimination
References
9
Case No. WR-82,828-01
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Anderson, Rodney Young

Rodney Anderson, the applicant, files preliminary protective objections to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Anderson contends that his due process rights were violated due to the State's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. He objects to the Trial Court's conclusions regarding: 1) exculpatory witness statements from Paras and Brummet that would have shown officers were not identifiable as law enforcement during his arrest, crucial for the aggravated assault charge; 2) the undisclosed contingency fee agreement and true nature of the deal with confidential informant Jeffery Harmon, which could impeach Harmon's testimony; and 3) the extent of misconduct and significant role of crime scene investigator Caryn McAnarney in collecting evidence, impacting the chain of custody and integrity of the drug evidence. Anderson seeks relief, arguing that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury's verdict and warrants reconsideration.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationSuppressed EvidenceDue ProcessExculpatory EvidenceImpeachment EvidenceConfidential InformantContingency FeePolice MisconductChain of Custody
References
13
Case No. ADJ7031117
Regular
Feb 27, 2013

JAMIE XELOWSKI, JENNIFER CAMPBELL vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK

This case concerns dependent benefits for the adult daughter of a deceased employee. The applicant argued that a Social Security Administration (SSA) Notice of Award conclusively presumed her dependency for death benefits under Labor Code section 3501(a). The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the SSA's disability determination constitutes an administrative finding by a trier of fact that the applicant was incapacitated from earning. This finding, occurring prior to the mother's death, satisfies the statutory requirement for conclusive presumption of dependency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDependent benefitsLabor Code section 3501(a)Conclusive presumption of dependencyTrier of factSocial Security AdministrationIncapacitated from earningAdult daughterMotor vehicle accidentIndustrial injury
References
18
Case No. ADJ2046824
Regular
Jun 24, 2013

OSCAR CARTER vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record regarding the applicant's 100% permanent total disability finding. While the heart trouble presumption for correctional officers was correctly applied, the medical evidence did not sufficiently establish "incurable mental incapacity" as required by Labor Code section 4662(d) for a conclusive presumption of total disability. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the trial level for supplemental medical reporting on the applicant's mental capacity and consideration of formal rating instructions to ensure substantial justice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 4850Permanent Total DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code section 3212.2Heart Trouble PresumptionCorrectional OfficersRebuttal of Presumption
References
8
Case No. ADJ7449576
Regular
May 11, 2016

MANNY WINNINGHAM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

This case concerns an applicant seeking total permanent disability benefits based on a brain injury. The applicant argued for conclusive total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4) due to permanent mental incapacity. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that while the applicant suffered serious psychiatric impairments leading to overall total disability, the specific cognitive impairments did not meet the threshold for the *conclusive* presumption of total disability under section 4662(a)(4). Therefore, apportionment was still applicable, and the previous award of $84\%$ permanent disability was upheld.

Permanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662(a)(4)Conclusive presumptionApportionmentBrain injuryPermanent mental incapacityGlobal Assessment of Functioning ScaleCognitive impairmentPsychiatric impairmentCorrectional officer
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,809 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