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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. 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. 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. ADJ8009793
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

FELICIANO BARRANDA, FAUSTINO BASABES vs. MIKE ETCHANDY FARIAS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendants' petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicants sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, specifically applying the "required vehicle" exception to the going and coming rule. This exception was found applicable because the employer benefited incidentally from the use of applicant's private vehicle for transporting workers and tools between fields on the same day. The WCAB gave great weight to the Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings, particularly the testimony of applicant Feliciano Barranda.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAOE-COEGoing and Coming RuleRequired Vehicle ExceptionJoint Petition for ReconsiderationCredibility FindingSubstantial EvidenceSole Witness TestimonyEmployer Witness TestimonyApplicant Testimony
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. 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. ADJ1504028 (AHM 0081465); ADJ603748 (AHM 0081464)
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

JENNIFER DICORATO vs. BLOOMFIELD BAKERY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The case involves a petition for removal filed by lien claimant Stuart Silverman, M.D., challenging an order by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ's order permitted the defendant to substitute a bill review expert witness and allow remote testimony. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report, dismissed the petition. The Board concluded that the issue was not yet ripe for adjudication as no final order or decision regarding the expert witness substitution or remote testimony had been issued by the WCJ. The decision further noted the importance of a complete record and admonished the lien claimant's representative, Dan Escamilla, for misrepresenting facts in the verified petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantSubstitution of Expert WitnessRemote TestimonyWCJ DecisionNot Ripe for AdjudicationPretrial Conference StatementSubstantial EvidenceAdmitted EvidenceSanctions
References
Case No. ADJ4669912 (VNO 0530425) ADJ1143446 (VNO 0553298)
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

CLAUDIA ARIZMENDI vs. CLEUGH'S FROZEN FOODS, PACIFIC COMEPNSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the allowable reimbursement rate for medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration due to a discrepancy between the administrative law judge's (WCJ) original award and the testimony of the defendant's expert witness. The WCJ's award was based on an incorrect calculation of the expert's testimony, which the WCAB corrected to reflect the expert's stated daily allowable rate. Consequently, the WCAB amended the Findings and Award to reimburse the lien claimant at the higher rate of $86.72 per day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeExpert WitnessReimbursement RateAcupuncture Procedure CodePhysical Therapy CodeBill Review Expert
References
Case No. ADJ7345520
Regular
Sep 07, 2011

ANTONIO NAVARRO vs. CBS FASTENERS, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves applicant Antonio Navarro's petition for reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits. The administrative law judge found applicant was the initial aggressor in an altercation with a co-worker on December 4, 2008, rendering his injury non-compensable under Labor Code § 3600(a)(7). Applicant argued the defendant failed to prove initial aggressor status and that he reasonably felt threatened, but his petition misrepresented the record and contradicted his own trial testimony where he denied initiating the physical contact. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report and finding overwhelming evidence, including witness testimony and a police report, that applicant was the initial aggressor.

initial aggressoraltercationsLab. Code § 3600(a)(7)Mathews v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility determinationwitness testimonypolice reportWCJ credibilityPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,750 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