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. ADJ10934545
Regular
Aug 23, 2019

Richard Rodriguez vs. CPG FOODS, LLC/GALA FOOD, Cannon Cochran Management Services Inc.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and modified the original award, finding that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) apportionment opinion lacked substantial evidence. The Board reversed the original 12% permanent disability finding, awarding 16% based on the QME's impairment rating after reviewing surveillance video evidence. The Board also clarified that treating physician reports from Dr. Mahboubian and Dr. Ahmed are admitted into evidence and may be relied upon. Finally, the Board affirmed the original findings regarding the injured body parts and the permanent and stationary date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardApplicantDefendantsInjury AOE/COEUpper BackHipsKneesTemporary Total Disability
References
Case No. ADJ8433514
Regular
Mar 22, 2019

EZEQUIEL MELGOZA vs. PRKACIN COMPANY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injuries to multiple body parts including shoulders, wrists, spine, ribs, sternum, and psyche. The defendant appealed the finding of 73% permanent disability, arguing it was unsupported by medical evidence and improperly calculated. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding substantial medical evidence supported the assigned impairments for each body part. The Board also upheld the decision to add bilateral upper extremity disabilities due to a synergistic effect, rather than combining them under the Combined Values Chart.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentDRE Cervical Category IIIAMA GuidesCombined Values ChartSynergistic EffectOrthopedicsDr. Ganjianpour
References
Case No. ADJ8205957
Regular
Dec 05, 2018

Margaret Marti Foxworthy vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves a State Park Ranger's workers' compensation claim for injury to her low back, hypertension, and psyche. The primary dispute centered on calculating her permanent disability rating, with the employer arguing for the Combined Values Chart (CVC) and the applicant preferring simple addition of impairments. The Appeals Board ultimately ruled that the CVC should be applied, resulting in a $67\%$ permanent disability rating, and clarified the timing of a $15\%$ "bump-up" in indemnity payments. The dissenting opinion argued against the CVC's application and challenged apportionment of hypertension disability due to lack of substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleCombined Values ChartApportionmentIndustrial InjuryState Park RangerHypertensionPsycheSexual DysfunctionDRE Lumbar Category III
References
Case No. ADJ9376675
Regular
Oct 20, 2015

JESSICA FIELD vs. INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the DRE method, rather than the ROM method, was improperly applied by the QME. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the QME's reliance on the DRE method, specifically Category IV, was supported by substantial medical evidence and properly applied under the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition. The defendant's contention that the rating was invalid under *Blackledge* was also rejected, as the QME report met legal and regulatory requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDINGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENTADMINSUREPermanent DisabilityAMA Guides Fifth EditionDRE MethodLumbar Spine Category IVwhole person impairment
References
Case No. ADJ10841321
Regular
Jul 15, 2025

RUBEN VEGA vs. HEAVILAND ENTERPRISES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Ruben Vega sought reconsideration of a WCJ's findings that awarded him 25% permanent disability after apportionment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and found that the qualified medical evaluator's apportionment opinions lacked substantial medical evidence due to inadequate reasoning and inconsistencies. As a result, the WCAB rescinded the original findings and awarded Ruben Vega 57% permanent disability without apportionment.

ApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code 4663Labor Code 4664EscobedoNunes ICausation of DisabilityDRE Chart
References
Case No. ADJ8314520
Regular
Aug 25, 2015

EULOGIO SANCHEZ-AGUILAR vs. PODESTA PACKING, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of 26% permanent disability. The applicant argued the agreed medical evaluator's (AME) report lacked substantial evidence due to alleged improper communication by the defense regarding x-ray reports. However, the Board found the applicant waived any objection by agreeing to the AME's review of the x-rays and cooperating with their creation. Furthermore, the Board agreed with the trial judge that the applicant failed to demonstrate how any purportedly unreviewed medical reports would have changed the AME's opinion.

Eulogio Sanchez-AguilarPodesta PackingU.S. Fire Insurance CompanyADJ8314520Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardand OrdersWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9171432
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

Kenneth Evanoff vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The applicant, previously awarded 96% permanent disability for a 2007 injury, suffered a subsequent injury in 2012 resulting in prostate cancer. The initial award used the Combined Values Chart to calculate the combined disability at 98%, entitling him to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The applicant argues the trial judge erred by using the Combined Values Chart and seeks to simply add the disability percentages, leading to a 100% combined disability. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that in the absence of overlapping disabilities, the disabilities should be added, entitling the applicant to a 100% permanent disability rating and remanding for a new award.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityCombined Values ChartLabor Code section 4664(c)(1)(G)Whole Person ImpairmentWPIDate of InjuryDate of Knowledge
References
Case No. ADJ10489999
Regular
Feb 01, 2019

Sean Lawson vs. Zenith Insurance Company

This case involves a dispute over the permanent disability rating for applicant Sean Lawson's low back injury. The defendant, Zenith Insurance Company, argues that the Range of Motion (ROM) method used by the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) was inappropriate, and the Diagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) method should have been applied as there was only one level of radiculopathy. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's finding that the ROM method was appropriate based on the QME's expert opinion and the AMA Guides' provision for its use with multi-level involvement. However, one Commissioner dissented, believing the DRE method was mandated given the lack of evidence for multi-level radiculopathy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNon-industrial factorsDiagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) methodRange of Motion (ROM) methodQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)AMA GuidesMultilevel radiculopathy
References
Case No. ADJ7614022
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

DESMOND BAILEY vs. IRON MOUNTAIN, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial award, and returned the case for further proceedings because the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) disability rating was not substantially supported by medical evidence. The AME failed to adequately justify his departure from the standard AMA Guides methodology, relying instead on an alternative section without sufficient explanation. The Board also dismissed the defendant's petition for removal, finding the procedural due process claim moot and lacking extraordinary circumstances. The matter will be returned to the trial level for development of the record and a new decision on permanent disability, with parties to address Labor Code section 4658(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent Disability RatingCumulative TraumaLabor Code section 4658(d)DRE Category II
References
Case No. ADJ10339693
Regular
Mar 16, 2019

CATHERINE WILSON vs. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the WCJ's decision regarding the applicant's industrial injury. The Board affirmed the finding of injury to the lumbar spine and the need for further medical treatment for that injury. However, all other issues, including injury to the shoulders and thoracic spine and the determination of permanent disability, were deferred due to the WCJ's inadequate explanation and analysis. Further proceedings are required to develop the record and clarify disputed medical opinions before a final decision on all issues can be made.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OrdersIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineThoracic SpineShouldersTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
Showing 1-10 of 161 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