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. ADJ14466153
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

JESSE CRUZ vs. BRISTOL INDUSTRIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant Jesse Cruz sought reconsideration of a WCJ's June 3, 2022 Findings and Order (F&O), which found he did not sustain an industrial injury to his back, hips, legs, and feet while employed by Bristol Industries on June 17, 2020. The Appeals Board previously granted reconsideration to further study the case and found the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed. Citing insufficient medical evidence on the issue of injury and a lack of clear analysis in the WCJ's credibility determination, the Board rescinded the F&O and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, including obtaining expert medical opinion on the injury and a more detailed credibility analysis by the WCJ.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication NumberFindings and OrderWCJReconsiderationFurther ProceedingsBack PainPeripheral NeuropathyLumbar MRI
References
16
Case No. ADJ8534803 (MF) ADJ8535153
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

Randy Graves vs. Roy's Concrete & Masonry, Inc., Farmers Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's finding that the applicant was not an employee of Roy's Concrete & Masonry, Inc. This decision was based on the judge's determination of the applicant's lack of credibility, citing inconsistencies in his testimony regarding pay and treatment history. The Board found that the judge's credibility assessment was entitled to great weight and that a formal Borello analysis was not required due to the absence of credible evidence of an employment relationship. Consequently, the applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied.

WCABReconsiderationEmployment relationshipCredibilitySubstantial evidenceBorello analysisTractor operatorRoy's Concrete & MasonryFarmers InsuranceWCJ
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. ADJ8750274
Regular
May 01, 2014

ISABEL FRITZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant who claimed a psychiatric injury due to workplace events. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her psyche and that it was not substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. The defendant filed a petition for reconsideration, challenging the applicant's credibility and the WCJ's findings. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report and upholding the credibility assessment of the applicant. The WCJ's report details the legal framework for psychiatric injuries and the analysis of specific events, ultimately concluding the applicant's injury was predominantly work-related and not solely due to protected personnel actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8750274Psychiatric InjuryLabor Code §3208.3Personnel ActionRolda v. Pitney Bowes Inc.
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piatt v. Colvin

Plaintiff April D. Piatt challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her disability insurance benefits, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating her severe impairments (major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, substance abuse) and non-severe conditions like back pain, carpal tunnel, and restless leg syndrome. Piatt also contested the ALJ's adherence to the treating physician rule regarding Dr. Mehl-Madrona and Ms. Masceri, and the credibility assessment of her testimony. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the ALJ properly weighed medical opinions and found no reversible error in the credibility analysis or development of the record. Consequently, Piatt's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeALJ decision reviewMental impairmentDepressionAnxiety disorderSubstance abuseResidual functional capacityTreating physician rule
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matejka v. Barnhart

Plaintiff, Ms. Matejka, alleging disability since March 31, 2000, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, which was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The plaintiff sought review in District Court, arguing the ALJ's decision lacked sufficient inquiry into past relevant work, a reasoned finding on credibility, a proper residual functional capacity assessment, and a correct determination of the severity of her depression. The District Court found the ALJ's conclusions not supported by substantial evidence due to these deficiencies, particularly regarding the exertional requirements of past work, the evaluation of the plaintiff's credibility, the lack of a function-by-function RFC analysis, and the failure to adequately assess the severity of her depression, especially in light of uncontradicted medical opinions. Consequently, the Court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing consistent with its findings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentMedical EvidencePsychological AssessmentSpinal StenosisChronic Back PainDepressionRemand
References
24
Case No. ADJ10117535
Regular
Aug 09, 2016

VICTOR CABRERA vs. SOUTHWEST CONNECTIONS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the trial judge's decision, remanding the case to the trial level. The original decision found no injury AOE/COE but lacked sufficient explanation and failed to address all issues. Critically, the WCAB found the trial record inadequate, noting a lack of medical evidence on causation and an incomplete analysis of the applicant's credibility issues. The matter will be reassigned to a new WCJ for further proceedings.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ's DecisionCredibilityContradictory TestimonyPost-termination DefenseMedical EvidenceCausationMechanism of InjurySection 5412
References
1
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. ADJ8307593
Regular
Apr 20, 2015

BENJAMIN ILORI vs. PACIFIC PALMS CONFERENCE RESORT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding the applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The applicant alleged psychological injury due to perceived workplace mistreatment and discrimination, including denied promotions. The Board found that the applicant's perceived mistreatment was not substantiated by credible evidence, and any actual personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith. Under the *Rolda* analysis, since all identified employment events were lawful personnel actions, the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for compensable injury.

AOE/COEpsyche injurycardiovascular systemcirculatory systemmistreatmentdiscriminationpersonnel actionsRolda v. Pitney Bowlesgood faith personnel actionpredominant cause
References
3
Case No. ADJ6575461
Regular
Jun 21, 2012

TORI VARGAS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a registered nurse, Tori Vargas, who claimed industrial injury to her psyche and right upper extremity from a physical altercation with a co-employee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Vargas's Petition for Reconsideration of the administrative law judge's decision. The judge found Vargas was the initial physical aggressor, barring her claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7). The Board affirmed the judge's credibility findings, which were based on extensive testimony and detailed analysis, finding no substantial contrary evidence or legal error presented by Vargas.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInitial physical aggressorLabor Code section 3600(a)(7)ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJ credibility assessmentPhysical altercationIndustrial injuryPsyche injuryUpper extremity injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,727 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