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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
Case No. FRE 0191303
Regular
Nov 27, 2007

NORMA OZUNA vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a finding that the defendant was not responsible for the costs of the applicant's vocational expert. The WCAB remanded the case to the trial level for further analysis, instructing the judge to consider the factors outlined in *Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic* regarding the reasonableness and necessity of expert costs. The decision does not comment on the merits of whether the costs are ultimately reimbursable.

Vocational expert costsLabor Code section 5811Costa v. Hardy DiagnosticPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAppeals Board en banccumulative traumaHepatitis Ccorrectional officeragreed medical evaluatorfindings of fact and award
References
Case No. ADJ7761748
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

JOSE VARGAS vs. WEST COAST LIQUIDATORS, INC., dba BIG LOTS STORES, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the recoverability of vocational expert costs and affirmed the applicant's 50% permanent disability rating. It held that the costs of vocational expert Robert Stoneburner's reports are recoverable, even if his opinions weren't found to be substantial evidence, as long as the expert was qualified and the costs were reasonable and necessary. The WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant was given significant weight, and the court found no basis to reject it. The case was remanded to determine the precise amount of recoverable expert costs.

Vocational expertPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent disabilityReimbursementLabor Code section 5811Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial evidenceExpert witness
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. GRO 0031810
Significant
Nov 13, 2007

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

The Appeals Board affirmed its prior holding that parties may present rebuttal evidence to a permanent disability rating, and the costs of such evidence may be allowable under Labor Code section 5811 if reasonable and necessary. The case was returned to the trial level to determine the specific reimbursement for the vocational expert's costs.

PDRSSB 899rebuttal evidencevocational rehabilitation consultantexpert witness feesSection 5811medical-legal costsLabor Code Section 4660permanent disability ratingtestimony
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. ADJ2671394 (STK 0163239)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

COTTAGE BAKERY vs. MCDONALD

The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order regarding calling an expert witness was not a final order. However, the Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's previous order. This action was based on the finding that Evidence Code section 776 does not permit an applicant to call an opposing party's expert witness during their case-in-chief. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalEvidence Code section 776adverse witnessexpert witnessfinal orderinterlocutory orderdiscoveryvocational rehabilitation expert
References
Case No. ADJ4176866 (AHM 0093466) ADJ125605 (AHM 0093469) ADJ1808207 (AHM 0294929)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

TIMMY WALLING vs. THE BOEING COMPANY; CIGA through its SERVICING FACILITY CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES for FREMONT, in liquidation

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's finding of cumulative industrial injury to the applicant's spine, blood pressure, heart, and psyche. However, the Board amended the order to allow for adjustment or litigation of costs for the expert witness Jeanine Metildi's testimony. The applicant's arguments regarding insufficient permanent disability benefits and a missed right knee injury were not accepted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Industrial InjuryStructural AssemblerSpineHigh Blood PressureHypertensionHypertensive Heart DiseasePsychePermanent and StationaryPermanent Disability Benefits
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,654 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