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. ADJ1142998 (RDG 0118288)
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had previously rescinded a finding that avascular necrosis was not a compensable consequence of the applicant's injury, finding the relied-upon medical opinion speculative. The defendant argues the WCJ correctly favored the opinion of Dr. Glancz over Dr. Barber. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reaffirming that Dr. Glancz's opinion was not substantial evidence due to repeated questioning of the injury mechanism, while Dr. Barber's opinion was persuasive and based on a complete history. Therefore, the WCAB maintained its prior decision that Dr. Barber's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequencesubstantial evidencemedical opinionworkers' compensation administrative law judgereconsiderationfindings and ordermedical treatmentindustrial basissubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ7877096
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

OGANES KARDZHYAN vs. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, CHARTIS INSURANCE CO./AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ failed to address the substantiality of Dr. Pietruszka's opinion regarding industrial causation for psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and headaches. The Board amended the WCJ's findings to include previously established injuries and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ is directed to consider Dr. Pietruszka's opinion and develop the record on orthopedic injuries. This decision is not final and allows for future reconsideration of the WCJ's new ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationMedical OpinionPsoriatic ArthritisDiabetesHeadachesIndustrially CausedSubstantial Medical EvidenceDevelop the RecordOrthopedic InjuriesPsyche
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

EEOC v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

This opinion and order addresses motions to exclude expert testimony in a class action sex discrimination lawsuit. The court reviewed challenges to various experts, including those in statistics, sociology, and damages, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards. While motions to exclude statistical experts Dr. Farrell Bloch, Dr. William Wecker, Dr. Louis L. Wilde, and Sheldon Wishnick, and social science expert Dr. Barbara Gutek were largely denied, the court granted motions to exclude Roger Blanc (securities expert) and Dr. Ira T. Kay (compensation expert). Additionally, the court partially granted and denied motions for social science experts Dr. William Bielby, Dr. June O’Neill, and Dr. Christopher Winship, limiting specific aspects of their testimony. The court emphasized that many disputes regarding expert methodologies and opinions should be left for the jury to weigh during trial.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardFederal Rule of Evidence 702Sex DiscriminationClass Action LawsuitEmployment LawStatistical AnalysisSocial Science ResearchWorkplace BiasAdmissibility of Evidence
References
17
Case No. ADJ8700541
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

ZAHRA STEPHENS vs. COX ENTERPRISES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's finding of permanent and total disability based on the opinions of a psychologist, Dr. Windman, and a vocational expert, Mr. Wilkinson. The Board found that Dr. Windman's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to inconsistencies, inadequate record review, and conflicts with other medical opinions. Consequently, Mr. Wilkinson's vocational opinion, which relied heavily on Dr. Windman's findings, was also deemed not substantial evidence. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a new determination of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityMedical OpinionVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidencePQMENeurologistPsychologistOrthopedist
References
10
Case No. ADJ3481462 (OAK 0297878)
Regular
Sep 24, 2009

KATHRYN MILLS vs. BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to the applicant's left upper extremity and shoulder, causing temporary disability and need for further medical care. The applicant's treating physician, Dr. Nolan, provided opinions regarding her left shoulder and other body parts, while Dr. Cabayan also provided opinions on the left shoulder and other extremities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the award, clarifying that future medical care is consistent with Dr. Cabayan's opinions for the left shoulder and Dr. Nolan's opinions for other body parts. The Board affirmed the award with this specific amendment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryInstructional AssistantLeft Upper ExtremityCompensable ConsequenceTemporary DisabilityFurther Medical CareSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. 91 Civ. 4544
Regular Panel Decision

Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. v. Fendi USA, Inc.

This opinion addresses defendants Fendi USA, Inc. and Fendi Stores, Inc.'s motion in limine to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Dov Frishberg. Plaintiff Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. sought to present Dr. Frishberg's economic analysis on the lost value of its business, attributing its closure to Fendi's alleged business slander and disparagement of goods. The court granted Fendi's motion, finding Dr. Frishberg's causation assumption irrational because the alleged defamatory statements occurred after Fashion Boutique's sales began to decline. Additionally, New York law requires specific proof of special damages, including identifying lost customers, which Fashion Boutique failed to provide given the limited dissemination of the alleged statements. Consequently, the expert testimony was deemed inadmissible as it would not assist the jury and was irrelevant to the claims under New York law.

Motion in LimineExpert Testimony ExclusionEconomic DamagesLost ProfitsBusiness SlanderDisparagement of GoodsSpecial DamagesCausation ProofNew York LawFederal Rules of Evidence 702
References
21
Case No. ADJ2030213; ADJ2904030; ADJ4232151
Regular
Oct 22, 2014

LETICIA SANCHEZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant Dr. Elena Konstat regarding a workers' compensation award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge. The judge found the opinion of Dr. Mory Framer more persuasive than Dr. Konstat's report, despite conflicting medical opinions. Dr. Framer concluded the applicant's psyche injury was non-industrial, while Dr. Konstat did not fully address pre-existing conditions or non-industrial stressors.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationsubstantial evidencelien claimantfindings and ordertimely petitionadmitted injuriesdenied body partspsyche injurypermanent disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ8225421
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

DENNIS HOSINO vs. YANTERRA PARKS AND RESORTS (FURNACE CREEK INN), SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and determined the WCJ erred in relying on Dr. Wood's apportionment opinion, finding it lacked substantial medical evidence and conflated impairment with permanent disability. While disallowing reimbursement for Dr. Mas's reports was upheld, the issues of permanent disability and apportionment were returned to the WCJ for further proceedings and a new decision. Dr. Wood must provide a new apportionment opinion that clearly distinguishes between permanent disability caused by the current injury and prior factors, supported by qualified medical analysis.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMedical-Legal CostsSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionLabor Code Section 4663AMA GuidesWhole Person Impairment
References
14
Case No. ADJ3371067 (VNO 0458070) ADJ4100976 (VNO 0493655)
Regular
Sep 11, 2013

WILLIAM JOHNSON vs. ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRIES dba VALLEY CREST, Permissibly Self-Insured; Adjusted by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended a prior award concerning lien claims for medical treatment by two doctors. The Board allowed Dr. Kottler's medical treatment liens based on a prior agreement, but reduced payment for his medical reports to the Official Medical Fee Schedule rates. Conversely, Dr. Singh's lien for medical treatment was rescinded as he failed to meet his burden of proof to establish the reasonableness and necessity of his treatment. The majority opinion found the agreement with Dr. Kottler enforceable, while a dissenting opinion disagreed with its interpretation and favored the fee schedule amounts.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical Treatment LiensOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleBurden of ProofCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerPsychiatric TreatmentCustomary FeeMedical-Legal Reports
References
0
Case No. ADJ3918602 (SAC 0330507) ADJ272371 (SAC 0354775)
Regular
Apr 05, 2010

THOMAS MELTON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award for spinal surgery recommended by the applicant's treating physician, Dr. Montesano. The defendant argued the administrative law judge should have favored the opinion of Dr. Reynolds, an agreed medical examiner. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding Dr. Montesano's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the award. The Board affirmed the judge's discretion to choose among conflicting medical reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPermissibly Self-InsuredDeputy SheriffIndustrial InjuryLow BackSpinal SurgeryTreating PhysicianAgreed Medical ExaminerSecond Opinion Physician
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 19,167 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