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. ADJ15013684
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

KEITH DAHL vs. QUEEN OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, CORVEL CORPORATION

Applicant Keith Dahl sought reconsideration of a May 7, 2025 "Findings and Award" (F&A) which denied penalties against the defendant, Queen of the Valley Hospital, but awarded attorney's fees. Dahl argued that defendant's three-month delay in submitting an EDD settlement constituted a bad-faith delay. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition, rescinded the F&A, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCAB found the record insufficient to determine penalties due to lack of explanation for the delay and deemed the support for attorney's fees inadequate, emphasizing the WCJ's duty to fully develop the record.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityEDDAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5909
References
7
Case No. ADJ1310387 (OAK 0333577)
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

DOREEN DAHL vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for industrial injury to the applicant's neck and right shoulder. The primary issue on reconsideration was whether the applicant successfully rebutted the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor in the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's vocational expert provided sufficient testimony to rebut the PDRS rating for the shoulder injury by focusing on similarly situated workers, as permitted by *Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco*. The Board clarified that this *LeBoeuf* analysis can apply even with less than 100% permanent disability and does not impermissibly rely on non-industrial factors when assessing DFEC. Therefore, the WCJ's decision awarding future medical treatment and 79% permanent disability is affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical Records TechnicianCumulative PeriodPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentDiminished Future Earning CapacityPermanent Disability Rating Schedule
References
11
Case No. ADJ8511004 ADJ8509547
Regular
Nov 14, 2019

JEREMY JONES vs. DAHL'S EQUIPMENT RENTALS, INC., STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant's orthopedic and psychiatric disabilities should be added together, resulting in 86% permanent disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the original finding in part but modifying it. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports were not substantial evidence due to inconsistencies regarding whether to combine or add disabilities. Therefore, the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record on permanent disability and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCombined Values Chartorthopedic disabilitypsychiatric disabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerAlmaraz/Guzman analysispermanent disability
References
13
Case No. ADJ8055062
Regular
May 28, 2013

JAIME CASTANEDA vs. KING DAHL EVENT DESIGN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior award that found a $15\%$ permanent disability and no industrial injury to the psyche. The applicant argues the administrative law judge (WCJ) erred by not including a neurologist's impairment rating for a sleep disorder and by not relying on the primary treating physician's orthopedic assessment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the matter for the WCJ to incorporate the neurologist's sleep disorder impairment rating, finding it uncontradicted. However, one commissioner dissented, arguing the sleep disorder was secondary to pain already included in the orthopedic rating and any psychiatric component was noncompensable.

WCABReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityOrthopedistNeurologistSleep DisorderAMA GuidesImpairment Rating
References
1
Case No. ADJ8189392
Regular
Jan 19, 2015

KATHRYN JOHNSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of permanent total disability. The defendant argued the vocational rehabilitation expert's report lacked substantial evidence and failed to apportion the injury. The Board found the vocational expert's opinion that the applicant was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and had a complete loss of earning capacity was supported by medical evidence. This analysis was unaffected by the *Dahl* decision, leading to the denial of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardNotice of IntentionVocational Rehabilitation ExpertSubstantial EvidenceApportionmentPermanent Total DisabilityLoss of Earnings CapacityDahl holdingContra Costa County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ2649808 (STK 0209059)
Regular
May 16, 2017

CHRIS ARSENAULT vs. CARPET MASTER, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a finding of 100% permanent disability for an admitted back injury. The defendant argued the vocational expert's report was flawed and unsubstantiated, but the Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of credibility. The WCJ's decision correctly applied *Dahl* to find the applicant not amenable to vocational rehabilitation due to his functional limitations, pain, and depression. The Board also rejected the defendant's attempt to admit newly discovered evidence, as it did not meet the criteria for such admission.

Vocational evaluatorpermanent disabilityreconsiderationindustrial injuryvocational reportingmedical evidencesubjective evidencedepressionvocational rehabilitationchronic pain
References
3
Case No. ADJ7449511
Regular
Dec 10, 2015

ANITA MORRIS vs. AC TRANSIT

This case involves a bus driver, Anita Morris, awarded 53% permanent disability for an industrial injury. The employer, AC Transit, petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the applicant did not properly rebut the diminished future earning capacity component of the award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award. This action was taken to allow parties to address the impact of a recent appellate court decision, *Contra Costa County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dahl)*, on the case's disputed issues. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPermanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECScheduled RatingRebuttedVocational Expert
References
4
Case No. ADJ8772254
Regular
Jul 20, 2017

Lorenzo Hernandez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lorenzo Hernandez's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award of 24% permanent disability for a right shoulder injury. The applicant argued that a vocational expert's report should have rebutted the scheduled disability rating, but the Board found this report insufficient. Relying on *Ogilvie* and *Dahl*, the Board determined that an applicant's amenability to vocational rehabilitation precludes using vocational expert testimony to challenge a scheduled rating based on lost earning capacity. Therefore, the vocational expert's opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to overcome the QME's scheduled rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertQualified Medical EvaluatorScheduled RatingReconsiderationLabor Code §4660.1AMA Guides 5th EditionAmenability to Vocational RehabilitationDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Abbott

Respondent, an attorney admitted in 1952, faced disciplinary charges from the Committee on Professional Standards. The charges included improper ex parte communications, sending harassing correspondence with false information, aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law (Betty O. Muka), making false and unsupported allegations in court and during investigations, and attempting to mislead the petitioner. These acts occurred during his representation in the Dahl v Baetz litigation and the Esther L. Bruce estate matter. Despite a previously clean record and expressed remorse, the court found the misconduct very serious. The respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years to protect the public and uphold the Bar's reputation.

Professional MisconductAttorney DisciplineEx Parte CommunicationFalse AllegationsUnauthorized Practice of LawHarassmentMisleading the CourtEthical ViolationsSuspension of AttorneyBar Association Standards
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1995

Shain v. Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co.

Plaintiff Myron Shain brought a class action lawsuit against Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Company, alleging violations of federal securities law (Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933) and three pendent state law claims. Shain, a purchaser of Towers Notes, claimed Duff & Phelps indirectly solicited sales through 'Class Brokers' by providing false information regarding Towers Financial Corporation's creditworthiness and the safety of its securities. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Peck's recommendation, dismissing the federal securities law claims with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to allege direct solicitation by the defendant, which is a requirement for Section 12 liability under Pinter v. Dahl. The pendent state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing for potential pursuit in state court.

Securities FraudPonzi SchemeTowers Financial CorporationDuff & PhelpsSolicitationSection 12 LiabilitySecurities Act of 1933Pendent JurisdictionDismissal with PrejudiceDismissal without Prejudice
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 10 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