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. ADJ10817362; ADJ10814219; ADJ10815251
Regular
Apr 14, 2023

SHANE PERRY vs. MASTEC, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, ADMINISTERED BY ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original decision finding the applicant permanently and totally disabled, with one amendment. The Board agreed to exclude the applicant's vocational rebuttal expert's report, as recommended by the Workers' Compensation Judge. However, the Board rejected the defendant's arguments regarding a subsequent injury, the vocational expert's legal standard, and the exclusion of defense vocational expert evidence.

Permanent and Total DisabilityVocational ExpertPetition for ReconsiderationMedical EvidenceLegal StandardAdmissibility of EvidenceCompensable Consequence InjuryLabor Market AccessDiminished Future Earning CapacityQME Reporting
References
14
Case No. ADJ11184599, ADJ11184523
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

Gregory White vs. Sky 2 Collision Corporation, Illinois Midwest Insurance Company, Inc., National Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gregory White's petition for reconsideration of a $47\%$ permanent disability award. White argued he was permanently totally disabled due to vocational limitations, but the Board found substantial evidence supported his ability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's finding that White was not permanently totally disabled and that his vocational expert's report was less persuasive than the defense vocational expert's. Issues regarding vocational costs were deferred pending a separate petition.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryLow back injuryLumbar spineBacterial infectionStreptoccocusLaminectomyPermanent disabilityVocational rehabilitationQualified injured worker
References
4
Case No. ADJ7882792 (MF), ADJ7882793
Regular
Mar 09, 2023

KARIM ELANEH vs. EZ LUBE, CIGA for CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The employer challenged the judge's finding of 100% permanent disability, primarily disputing the reliance on the applicant's vocational expert over the defense's expert. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion more persuasive, citing the applicant's credible testimony and consistent inability to return to work since the 2011 injury. The judge concluded the applicant is totally and permanently disabled due to extensive physical and psychiatric limitations stemming from workplace violence.

Workplace violencevocational expertpermanent disabilityreconsiderationapportionmentAgreed Medical Examinerpsychiatric injuryPTSDGeneralized Anxiety DisorderMajor Depressive Disorder
References
0
Case No. ADJ8903652
Regular
Nov 30, 2017

Deric Hobson vs. BECHTEL GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award to find applicant permanently totally disabled (100% permanent disability). This decision overturned the trial judge's finding of 88% permanent disability, accepting the applicant's argument that his admitted Valley Fever injury rendered him unemployable. The Board found persuasive the vocational expert's opinion that the applicant's chronic pain, fatigue, and concentration issues made him unemployable and not amenable to vocational rehabilitation, despite the defense's vocational expert's opposing view. The case was returned for a new award reflecting 100% permanent disability.

Valley FeverCoccidiomycosiscumulative traumapermanent total disabilityvocational expertAMA GuidesWhole Person Impairmentsemi-sedentary workactivities of daily livingvocational rehabilitation
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06114
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2022

Fernandez v. Taping Expert, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sandy Joel Fana Fernandez, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion to set aside a jury verdict. Fernandez was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while painting, claiming a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation against defendants Blima Ruchel Girls School and Keren Yad Veizer, Inc. The jury found the fall did not substantially cause his injuries, a finding supported by defense experts attributing injuries to degenerative causes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationDegenerative InjuriesEvidence WeightMotion DenialProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. ADJ8811286
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

Roy Lehman vs. Walgreens, Zurich American Insurance Company

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed the finding that Roy Lehman is permanently and totally disabled due to an industrial injury to his low back and psyche. Defendant Walgreens appealed, arguing the finding of permanent total disability was improper due to a lack of apportionment and reliance on incorrect rating schedules. The Board found substantial medical and vocational evidence supported the total disability finding, including expert opinions that Lehman was unemployable and not amenable to rehabilitation even after considering apportionment. The Board also found the vocational expert's reports met the substantial evidence standard despite defense challenges.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWalgreensZurich American Insurance CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesRoy LehmanOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orderpermanent total disabilityapportionmentLabor Code Section 4663
References
2
Case No. RDG 0095368; RDG 0095369; RDG 0095573; RDG 0126270
Regular
Sep 25, 2007

HENRY PHILLIPE vs. GOTTSCHALKS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow reimbursement for the applicant's vocational expert fees, reversing the WCJ's decision. The Board found it reasonable for the applicant to hire his own vocational expert to rebut the defendant's expert, especially given the passage of time since the original vocational feasibility report. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant's attorney for the $1,075.00 vocational expert cost.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationExpert Witness FeesVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (QRR)LeBoeuf argumentAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Permanent DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
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. ADJ4280526 (OXN 0148727)
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

CLARA ARBIZU vs. WESTAC, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's request for the defendant to prepay the cost of a vocational expert. The Appeals Board affirmed the original decision that defendants are not obligated to prepay these expenses. However, the Board clarified that vocational expert costs are considered medical-legal expenses under Labor Code section 4620 et seq., and defendants are liable for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred for proving or disproving a contested claim. The parties are ordered to proceed with a vocational expert evaluation, with the defendant ultimately responsible for the costs.

ArbizuVocational expertPrepaymentMedical-legal expenseLabor Code Section 4620Labor Code Section 4621Labor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5708Ogilvie analysisWhole Person Impairment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,141 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