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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ10518881
Regular
Mar 17, 2025

JOSE RAMIREZ vs. QUALITY SCALES UNLIMITED, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

Applicant Jose Ramirez sought reconsideration of a Findings and Awards (F&A) issued on December 17, 2024, which determined a 40% permanent disability (PD) rating, notably excluding any psychiatric component. Ramirez contended that this rating was inadequate, citing inconsistent PQME reports with higher PD ratings, unaddressed surgical scars, the omission of a psychiatric component despite claims of a catastrophic injury, and newly discovered evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) initial decision lacked sufficient explanation for the PD rating and the catastrophic injury determination. Additionally, the WCAB found that the WCJ improperly relied on an inadmissible consultative rating determination. As a result, the WCAB amended the F&A to defer the issues of permanent disability impairment rating and attorney's fees, while otherwise affirming the WCJ's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsPermanent DisabilityPQMEAMA GuidesCatastrophic InjuryPsychiatric ComponentLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
Case No. ADJ11368246
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

Marta Ubillus vs. One Stop Employment Services, LLC/Vensure Employer Services, Security National Insurance Company, State National Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the valuation of interpreter services. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found that while the defendant did not present rebuttal evidence, the ALJ had substantial evidence to make a determination. The ALJ determined a market rate of $114.97 per hour but noted the lien claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the duration of services on most dates, preventing application of the market rate. Consequently, the statutory rate was applied for those services.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedLien ClaimantInterpreter ServicesMarket RateStatutory RateWCJ ReportSubstantial EvidenceFindings and Award
References
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ7019734, ADJ7019744
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

WAJID KHAN vs. DAVITA, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Wajid Khan's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The Administrative Law Judge found Khan's occupational group number to be 212, resulting in a 69% permanent disability rating. Khan argued for a higher rating based on his duties also fitting occupational group 340, but the Board denied reconsideration. The Board found insufficient evidence to support Khan's dual occupational classification and noted his procedural violation by attaching inadmissible evidence to his petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityOccupational Group NumberDialysis TechnicianPatient Care TechnicianConsultative Rating DeterminationWCAB Rule 10166(b)
References
Case No. ADJ758842 (VNO 0559214)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

JOHN PATCHETT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision to vacate the submission. This action was based on the DEU evaluator's testimony, which revealed deficiencies in the AMEs' reports concerning the AMA Guides. The Board found the applicant waived any objection to this testimony by failing to object at trial, and that the evaluator's expert opinion was permissible per *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. Defendant's objection, though not styled as a motion to strike, sufficiently raised the issues leading to the vacation of the rating.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDEU evaluatorAMA Guidesagreed medical evaluators (AMEs)rating instructionssubstantial evidenceobjective factors of disabilitywhole person impairmentformal rating
References
Case No. ADJ5756564
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

RICK HEER vs. WORLD MINERALS INC., TRAVELERS IMDEMNITY CO. OF ILLINOIS

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the order setting the case for trial. The Board found that setting the matter for trial closed discovery prematurely, causing prejudice to the applicant who was transitioning from pro se representation and seeking to amend his claim to include additional body parts. The applicant's prior counsel faced illness and filing difficulties, and the Board determined that justice required further development of the record. The Board returned the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalWCJApplicant Pro PerQualified Medical ExaminationSummary Rating DeterminationEmployee's Permanent Disability QuestionnaireMaximum Medical ImprovementConsultative RatingDeclaration of Readiness
References
Case No. ADJ1912370
Regular
Mar 25, 2011

RONALD PURE vs. CENTER LINE ELECTRIC, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, reversing the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar. The WCJ had permitted the applicant to obtain further discovery after a consultative rating was lower than expected. The Board held that discovery should not be reopened at this stage, as no trial evidence had been presented or submitted for decision. The case was returned to the trial level to proceed with the existing evidence, with the WCJ authorized to develop the record only if substantial evidence is lacking after that.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderOff CalendarFurther DiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferenceInformal RatingQualified Medical EvaluatorConsultative RatingDisability EvaluatorMedical Record Development
References
Case No. ADJ6786559, ADJ7167049
Regular
Dec 08, 2014

KURT KOSTKA vs. V. DOLAN TRUCKING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Kurt Kostka's appeal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision regarding industrial injuries. The Board amended the prior award to include a hernia injury and entitlement to future medical treatment for psychological injury. However, issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees were deferred for further proceedings at the trial level. The Board found the original judge's reliance on consultative ratings and rejection of vocational expert opinions to be erroneous. Jurisdiction was returned to the trial level due to the original judge's retirement and the need for further development of the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHerniaPsychePermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentVocational ExpertPQMEDEUConsultative Rating
References
Case No. FRE 0233572, FRE 0233574, FRE 0233575, FRE 0237180
Regular
Jan 16, 2008

WILLIAM R. ALTMAN vs. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., SENTRY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, determining that the older permanent disability rating schedule should apply due to the defendant's obligation to provide specific statutory notices. The case is returned to the trial level to re-rate permanent disability using the correct schedule and to issue a decision on a previously undecided claim. The Board affirmed the denial of transportation and lodging costs for the applicant's trial attendance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardCumulative TraumaPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code Section 4061Labor Code Section 4660(d)Old Rating ScheduleNew Rating ScheduleIndustrial Injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,990 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

ยฉ 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational