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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
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. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. ADJ9120742
Regular
May 11, 2016

CHRIS KING vs. SAN JOSE JOB CORPS, INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF PA, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award to the applicant, Chris King. The defendant argued the applicant's testimony was not credible due to discrepancies in medical records and reporting delays. However, the Board gave great weight to the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determination, which was supported by independent witness testimony corroborating the claimed injury during an MMA class. The Board found no substantial evidence to reject the judge's findings, affirming the original award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility determinationTrainee Employee Assistance Program SpecialistMixed Martial ArtsMMAneck injuryright shoulder injurydysphagia
References
1
Case No. ADJ4669912 (VNO 0530425) ADJ1143446 (VNO 0553298)
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

CLAUDIA ARIZMENDI vs. CLEUGH'S FROZEN FOODS, PACIFIC COMEPNSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the allowable reimbursement rate for medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration due to a discrepancy between the administrative law judge's (WCJ) original award and the testimony of the defendant's expert witness. The WCJ's award was based on an incorrect calculation of the expert's testimony, which the WCAB corrected to reflect the expert's stated daily allowable rate. Consequently, the WCAB amended the Findings and Award to reimburse the lien claimant at the higher rate of $86.72 per day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeExpert WitnessReimbursement RateAcupuncture Procedure CodePhysical Therapy CodeBill Review Expert
References
0
Case No. ADJ7348149
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

CELINE ROUYA vs. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, CORVEL CORPORATION

The applicant appeals the WCJ's decision denying injury to psyche and other body parts, arguing the WCJ erred by not addressing her harassment claim and finding the personnel actions were in good faith. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues, noting discrepancies in witness testimony and insufficient medical opinions on causation. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record, including obtaining clarified medical opinions on causation and further testimony. The dissenting commissioner would affirm the WCJ's decision, finding the personnel actions were legal and non-discriminatory, and applicant's harassment claims were not supported by objective evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCeline RouyaSave Mart SupermarketsCorvel CorporationADJ7348149ReconsiderationPsychiatric InjuryPharmacy TechnicianHarassmentNational Origin
References
5
Case No. 532665
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Vasquez

Christian Vasquez, a demolition worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his left ankle from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing a prior soccer injury and discrepancies in testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board found a work-related injury and awarded benefits, upholding the statutory presumption for unwitnessed accidents and crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board also relied on medical opinions that the severe Achilles tendon rupture could not have been sustained prior to the work incident given the claimant's ability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings supported by substantial evidence and its credibility determinations reasonable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryLeft Ankle InjuryLadder FallDemolition WorkUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adebahr v. 3840 Orloff Avenue Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the lawful cancellation of a workers’ compensation insurance policy. The primary issue was whether the carrier's May 25, 1979 cancellation notice complied with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54(5), which mandates strict conformance for service via certified or registered mail with a return receipt. The carrier provided a return receipt with a date discrepancy and an acknowledgment form, but the Board found an insufficient nexus to the cancellation notice. The appellate court affirmed the Board's conclusion, agreeing that the carrier failed to establish strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements, citing the date discrepancy and a credibility question regarding the underwriter's testimony.

Insurance CancellationStatutory ComplianceCertified MailRegistered MailReturn ReceiptBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewCredibility QuestionPost-Office ErrorNotice Requirements
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,648 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