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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
Case No. ADJ9782813
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

ELVINA BRYANT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the Department of Corrections' due process claim. The Board vacated a prior award finding applicant sustained an industrial injury and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision allows the defendant to present evidence that witness statements were timely provided despite their exclusion at trial. The defendant must also justify the late appearance of a rebuttal witness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitationcorrectional officerindustrial injurypsychedue processwitness exclusiondiscoveryPre-Trial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement Conference
References
Case No. ADJ6602419
Regular
May 24, 2010

SIPRIANO MARTINEZ (Deceased) MARINA MARTINEZ (Widow) vs. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, ALL AMERICAN RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order denying a change of venue because the order was procedural, not final. However, the WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding that the denial of venue change to Bakersfield was an error. The Board concluded that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated good cause under Labor Code section 5501.6 for a venue change to Bakersfield, where the applicant and witnesses reside and the events occurred. Therefore, venue was changed to the Bakersfield District Office.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6(b)Due ProcessBakersfield District OfficeSan Francisco District OfficeFinal OrderProcedural OrderPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. RIV 81540
Regular
Apr 25, 2008

LEONARD KOLAR vs. TMI PRODUCTS, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Appeals Board granted removal because the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erroneously excluded an employer's designated representative, who was also a witness, from the applicant's testimony. This exclusion prejudiced the defendant. The Board struck the applicant's testimony and returned the case for further proceedings, but declined to disqualify the WCJ.

Petition for RemovalEmployer RepresentativeWitness ExclusionEvidence Code Section 777Applicant TestimonyIndustrial InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryLeft Upper ExtremityEmployer DenialPriority Conference
References
Case No. MON 0311734
Regular
Feb 19, 2008

DANIEL MUNGUIA vs. PREFERRED PERSONNEL, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied his claim for a back injury, finding his testimony regarding the cause of injury lacked credibility. The Board affirmed the decision, emphasizing that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a compensable injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. Key to the decision were contradictions in the applicant's statements and the exclusion of a witness's testimony, which the Board found was properly excluded based on prior orders limiting the record.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibilityBurden of ProofMedical RecordsLabor Code Section 3202Substantial EvidenceMedical TreatmentIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ389222 (MON 0358328) ADJ1530924 (MON 0358329)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

JESUS CONSTANZA vs. THE TORRANCE CO., doing business as HOLIDAY INN CITY CENTER

This case involves an applicant who filed a workers' compensation claim for a spine injury after being terminated from employment. The employer sought to deny benefits under Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10), which bars post-termination claims. However, the Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury, finding two exceptions to the statute applied. Specifically, medical records documented the injury prior to termination, and the applicant first discovered the cumulative trauma injury and experienced disability after termination. The Board also rejected the employer's other contentions regarding witness exclusion and the EDD lien.

post-termination claimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)industrial injurycumulative traumatemporary disabilityself-procured medical treatmentEDD liendate of injurymedical recordsdisability
References
Case No. VNO 0272543, VNO 0246317
Regular
May 12, 2008

JOSE ACEVES vs. FERNANDO AUTO SALES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the State Compensation Insurance Fund's petition for removal, overturning an interim decision that disallowed direct testimony from defendant's medical witnesses. The Board ruled that the restrictions on direct medical witness testimony in Rules 10606 and 10727 do not apply when physicians are testifying as percipient witnesses to issues like billing practices or illegal supervision of aides, rather than about the treatment of specific injured workers. Therefore, the testimony of these physicians is now allowed at trial.

Removal petitionInterim Findings and Awarddirect examinationmedical witnessespercipient witnessesadministrative proceduresbilling practicesscope of practiceLabor Code section 5708WCAB Rules 10606
References
Case No. ADJ7785257
Regular
Mar 30, 2015

JOHN HUTTMAN vs. SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an adverse ruling for John Huttman, applicant, against Solano County Probation. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found Huttman to be an incredible witness. Key evidence included the applicant's prior medical history, the impeachment of his witness, and proof that the alleged injury report to a supervisor was impossible. Therefore, the Board upheld the denial of the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.industrial causationadverse rulingdisputed claimwitness credibilityimpeached witnessjuvenile wards
References
Showing 1-10 of 703 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