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. GRO 0034176
Regular
Feb 04, 2008

RICK McALARY vs. NUNNO CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to an impending en banc ruling addressing contested issues regarding the proper application of the new permanent disability rating schedule. The case involves an applicant injured as an ironworker/construction laborer, whose permanent disability calculation and vocational expert's report were disputed. The Board deferred final determination pending the en banc decision and ordered continued payment of undisputed benefits.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRick McAlaryNunno CorporationState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityVocational Rehabilitation ExpertDiminished Earning CapacityPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleEn Banc Decision
References
Case No. ADJ7445107
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

JILLIAN DIFUSCO vs. HANDS ON SPA, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Appeals Board, en banc, granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding disclosure requirements for defendants. The WCJ had ruled that the defendant only needed to disclose the name of its insurance carrier as per WCAB Rule 10390. The Board determined that its prior en banc decisions, Coldiron I and II, are binding precedent and require defendants to disclose all entities liable for payment and any insurance policy provisions affecting liability. Consequently, the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order were rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this comprehensive disclosure mandate.

En Banc DecisionWCAB Rule 10390Coldiron IColdiron IIDiscovery RequestInsurance Carrier DisclosureSelf-Insured RetentionLarge DeductibleEntity Liable for CompensationThird-Party Administrator
References
Case No. ADJ425881 (MON 0349358) ADJ1664800 (MON 0330278)
Regular
Feb 23, 2009

Jerry Salmeron vs. COCA COLA ENTERPRISES

This case concerns an applicant's admitted industrial injuries to his low back, psyche, and hernias, and his subsequent permanent disability ratings. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address disputes regarding the proper application of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities, particularly concerning diminished future earning capacity (DFEC). The WCAB rescinded the prior awards and remanded the cases to the trial level to allow the judge and parties to apply recent en banc decisions clarifying how the DFEC and AMA Guides portions of the schedule can be rebutted. The decision emphasizes that rebuttal must be consistent with Labor Code section 4660 and specific en banc rulings on evidence and methodology.

WCABSalmeronCoca Cola EnterprisesDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilityrebutted2005 Schedulediminished future earning capacityDFEC
References
Case No. ADJ7048296
En Banc
Jul 14, 2011

Elayne Valdez vs. Warehouse Demo Services, Zurich North America

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its previous en banc decision to further study the legal and factual issues surrounding the admissibility of medical reports from outside a valid MPN.

MPNunauthorized treatmentinadmissible reportsnon-MPN doctorsWCABreconsiderationen bancpetition for reconsiderationsupplemental pleadingopinion and order
References
Case No. ADJ9351964, ADJ9351965
En Banc
Apr 13, 2016

Rogelio Cornejo vs. Younique Cafe Inc., Zenith Insurance Company

The Appeals Board affirmed its previous en banc decision, holding that a copy service acting as an agent or independent contractor for a member of the State Bar is exempt from the registration provisions of the Business and Professions Code.

WCABen bancBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451lien claimantregistration and bondingindependent contractormedical-legal expensesLabor Code section 4620(a)prima facie showingState Bar
References
Case No. ADJ1078163, ADJ3341185
En Banc
Sep 03, 2009

MARIO ALMARAZ, JOYCE GUZMAN vs. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This en banc decision clarifies that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable, but any evidence to rebut the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) component must be based within the four corners of the AMA Guides.

AlmarazGuzmanWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boarden bancprecedentAMA Guides2005 Schedulepermanent disabilityrebuttableprima facie evidence
References
Case No. GRO 0031810
En Banc
Dec 07, 2006

JOEY M. COSTA vs. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, holds that the applicant has not met the burden of proving the new Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) invalid and affirms that rebuttal evidence to a rating is permissible under the new schedule.

PDRSSB 899Labor Code section 4660en bancrebuttal evidencecosts of rebuttal evidenceRAND Reportfuture earnings capacityempirical dataAMA Guides
References
Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426)
Significant
Apr 14, 2009

Lawrence Weiner, Applicant vs Ralphs Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, allows the submission of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional issues arising from the legislative repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, which pertains to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

VRMALabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationrepealstatutory rightvested rightsghost statutessavings clauseen bancamicus briefs
References
Case No. ADJ9542328
Significant
Nov 14, 2019

Ashley Colamonico vs. Secure Transportation, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This en banc decision clarifies that a medical-legal provider bears the initial burden of proof to show that its expenses were reasonable and necessary at the time they were incurred, and a defendant does not waive these objections by failing to raise them in a timely Explanation of Review (EOR).

En bancPetition for ReconsiderationMed-Legal Photocopylien claimantexplanation of reviewcontested claimreasonable and necessarysubpoena duces tecumburden of proofmedical-legal expenses
References
Case No. ADJ8588344
Significant
Oct 26, 2017

Applicant vs. Garden Plating Co., Intercare Holdings Insurance Services

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, consolidates over 1,200 Petitions for Reconsideration filed by lien claimants concerning a DWC administrative action, dismisses the petitions as moot, and returns the individual cases to the trial level for adjudication.

En BancLien CasesPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4903.05(c) DeclarationDWC Administrative ActionMootDismissalConsolidationWCAB Rule 10589Suspension of Rule
References
Showing 1-10 of 547 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