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. 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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ3533537 (VNO 0556925)
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

Richard Varela vs. Morley Group, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award of $2,737.50 for an expert witness's trial testimony, clarifying that such expenses are permissible costs under Labor Code section 5811. The Board held that the expert's testimony regarding the necessity of home health care services was relevant to the lien claimants' burden of proof, even though the primary injury claim was ultimately unsuccessful. This decision distinguishes between medical-legal expenses and trial witness costs, allowing for the latter when reasonably incurred for essential elements of a lien claim. The Board found the expert's testimony necessary for the lien claimants to establish all elements of their case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings of Fact and OrderLabor Code section 5811lien claimantshome health care servicesexpert testimonytrial testimonyreasonableness and necessityinjury AOE/COEmedical-legal expenses
References
Case No. ADJ218867
Regular
Apr 13, 2011

SANDY FRIZZELL vs. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, CHARTIS COSTA MESA, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision regarding Sandy Frizzell's claim against the Department of Parks and Recreation. The petitioner, State Compensation Insurance Fund, contested the 17% disability rating assigned for Ms. Frizzell's headaches, arguing it was improperly calculated. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the rating expert's testimony credible and unimpeached. The judge's report explained that the rating appropriately reflected the intermittent nature of the headaches, as testified by the expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedRating Expert TestimonyUnimpeached TestimonyCredible TestimonyLyme DiseaseContinuing TraumaState Compensation Insurance FundResource EcologistDisability Evaluation Specialist
References
Case No. GRO 32009
Regular
Jan 04, 2008

TEMICKA WILLIAMS vs. COMPASS HEALTH, INC., CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a 19% permanent disability rating for an industrial injury sustained on October 25, 2004, ruling the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule applies. The Board also found applicant's vocational expert's testimony insufficient to rebut the rating and that the defendant is not liable for the expert's trial testimony costs. However, the Board remanded the issue of the vocational expert's lien for further determination of its reasonableness and necessity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS)vocational expertdiminished future earning capacity (DFEC)Labor Code section 4660Dr. Anne Wallacelienreasonableness and necessitymedical-legal costsexpert testimony
References
Case No. ADJ7715497
Regular
Jan 17, 2015

SUDJAI SUKSAMRARN (Deceased) TUENJAI SUKSAMRARN (Widow) vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning an earlier decision that barred Edward Steinbrecher from testifying as an expert witness. The Appeals Board found that while Steinbrecher's prior representation of the applicant in a third-party action raised questions about his impartiality, this affected the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The judge erred by disallowing testimony solely because the expert was not deemed "disinterested," as this is not a legal requirement for expert qualification. Therefore, Steinbrecher is now permitted to testify as an expert witness.

Petition for RemovalExpert Witness TestimonyDisinterested WitnessAdmissibilityWeight of EvidenceThird Party CreditIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitQualified ExpertPrior Representation
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ6950787
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

JOSE BARRIENTOS vs. MARK GREENBERG, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the administrative law judge (WCJ) abused discretion by finding the applicant credible, specifically regarding the duration of employment to exclude him from employee status under Labor Code §3352(h). The WCJ adopted the report recommending denial, emphasizing applicant's credible testimony regarding hours worked and pay, and finding the defendant's testimony less reliable due to a lack of direct knowledge. The Board extended great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, affirming the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility findingLabor Code §3352(h)employee definitionconflicting testimonyobservational demeanorunreliable testimonyunrebutted testimony
References
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
Case No. ADJ3110837
Regular
Nov 09, 2009

BERTA GUILLEN vs. LINZER PRODUCTS, RISK ENTERPRISE 2314 BREA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board denied reconsideration of a lien claim, finding the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof and that the defendant's expert testimony was credible.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantBurden of ProofCredibility DeterminationWCJ ReportDocumentary EvidenceTestimonial EvidenceReasonable ValueFee Schedule
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,527 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