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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kessler v. Fairmont Theater, Inc.

Claimant, employed for two days in 1986 as a projectionist, sought workers' compensation benefits for psychiatric injury and eye injury. He alleged harassment from his employer and supervisor caused a nervous breakdown, and projector light injured his eyes. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge dismissed the psychiatric injury claim but found prima facie evidence for vision impairment, remitting that part for further development. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled against the psychiatric trauma claim, a decision supported by employer and supervisor testimony denying harassment and claimant's psychiatrist confirming prior psychiatric issues. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was based on substantial evidence and that issues of credibility are within the Board's purview.

Psychiatric InjuryNervous BreakdownEye InjuryEmployment TerminationIntoxicationHarassmentCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ11001608
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

MICHAEL CARMONA vs. CORNERSTONE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., ZURICH LOS ANGELES

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for an eye injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the administrative law judge's finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the applicant's right eye, arguing this issue was not properly before the court. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant had already accepted liability for the right eye injury. The Board also affirmed the judge's discretion to defer the issue of injury to the left eye. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing the defendant was denied due process by the judge amending the claim to include the right eye without notice or opportunity to be heard.

WCABFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationInjury AOE/COERight EyeLeft EyePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorQMEMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference Statement
References
0
Case No. ADJ665716
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

JUDD GLOVER vs. ACCU CONSTRUCTION, FIRST COMP OMAHA

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a high-velocity eye injury on June 8, 2006, along with injuries to his head, brain, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding of a high-velocity eye injury and ongoing temporary total disability. However, the Board remanded the case to the trial level for further development of the record to determine if the eye injury contributes to the applicant's continuing temporary disability, which is necessary for extended benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). Issues of additional temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees were deferred pending this determination.

High-velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656Temporary total disabilityReconsiderationFindings & AwardCompensable consequenceNexusAmputation exceptionCruz v. Mercedes-BenzFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. ADJ1737177 (SAC 0359710)
Regular
Aug 11, 2014

Melinda Peterson vs. ALTIM HARMONY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that denied an industrial injury to the applicant's left eye, despite admitting a cervical spine and psyche injury. The applicant contends that her vision loss is a result of her cervical surgery, as supported by an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. The Board found the medical record inadequately developed regarding the cause and industrial causation of the eye injury. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for further medical evaluations to establish a causal connection to the admitted injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMelinda PetersonAltim HarmonyAthens Administrators Insurance CompanyADJ1737177SAC 0359710Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2006

Giblin v. Pine Ridge Log Homes, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Martin McClary, sustained a severe eye injury while working on a construction project subcontracted by Pine Ridge Log Homes, Inc. The plaintiff initiated an action against Pine Ridge, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against McClary for indemnification. The core legal issue revolved around whether the plaintiff's loss of an eye, despite wearing a prosthesis, constituted a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, a condition required for third-party indemnification claims against employers. The Supreme Court had partially denied McClary's cross-motion for summary judgment, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff's injury did not meet the definition of "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" as per the narrowly defined grave injury categories. Consequently, Pine Ridge's common-law indemnification claim against McClary was dismissed, while the denial of severance for the breach of contract claim was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentCross AppealsStatutory InterpretationConstruction AccidentEye Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ9917545
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

Richard Ray vs. Jed Francis, Inc., Zurich American Insurance Group, American Claims Management

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Richard Ray sustained an industrial injury. This injury, originating from an eye incident, led to a MRSA infection, epidural abscess, paraplegia, and severe permanent impairments. Medical evidence from IME Dr. Feinberg, Dr. Edington, and Dr. Baum established a medical probability that the initial eye injury caused the subsequent severe cascade of medical conditions. The Board affirmed the WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony, finding no substantial contrary evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial causationepidural abscessMRSAparaplegiasubstantial medical evidenceindependent medical evaluatorarising out of and in the course of employmentmedical sequelaeapportionment
References
0
Case No. LAO 0871191
Regular
May 12, 2008

FREDDY CORDERO vs. AB-HR COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior award, finding that the applicant's psychiatric injury was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) due to his employment duration of less than six months. The Board determined that being struck in the eye by flying debris, a foreseeable risk in his work environment where safety goggles were required, did not constitute a "sudden and extraordinary employment event." Consequently, the claim for psychiatric injury was denied, and the matter was returned for further proceedings on permanent disability and attorney fees related to the admitted industrial injury to the applicant's right eye.

Labor Code section 3208.3sudden and extraordinary employment eventpsychiatric injurycompensable consequenceindustrial injurysequalaethreshold requirementsix-month employment limitationMajor Depressive Disorderpermanent disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ10448534
Regular
Apr 25, 2023

EMAD REZKALLA vs. CATHEDRAL CITY AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING INC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here is a summary of the case for a lawyer: The applicant sought to set aside a prior Stipulation with Request for Award based on alleged mutual mistake regarding the inclusion of a right eye injury. The original award, entered in 2017, specifically listed injuries to the left knee, left elbow, and lower back, and the applicant had not previously provided medical evidence linking the right eye issue to his 2014 work injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's findings that no mutual mistake was demonstrated and that the board lacked jurisdiction to reopen the award due to the untimeliness of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardPetition to Set AsideMutual MistakeLabor Code § 4909Labor Code § 5903Labor Code § 5804Injury to BackInjury to Arm
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 12,725 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