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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ10153886
Regular
Apr 23, 2018

MICHAEL BARROS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a sheriff's investigator, injured his right knee while jogging off-duty. The employer, County of Riverside Sheriff's Department, denied the claim, asserting it was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as an off-duty recreational activity. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, ruling the injury was not compensable because the applicant failed to demonstrate his subjective belief that jogging was objectively reasonable or required by his employment. General employer preferences for physical fitness or its mention in performance evaluations, without specific directives or testing, are insufficient to overcome the statutory bar.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)AOE/COEoff-duty recreational activitysubjective beliefobjectively reasonableEzzy testvocational expectationphysical fitness requirementsperformance evaluationssubstantial nexus
References
Case No. VNO 0515904
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

CHRISTOPHER STOKES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERRIF'S DEPARTMENT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's decision and finding that the deputy sheriff's bicep injury sustained while training for an employer-sanctioned boxing tournament arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board applied the *Ezzy* test, finding both subjective and objective reasonableness in the applicant's belief that his participation was expected, despite the injury occurring during off-duty training at a private residence. The matter was returned for further proceedings, deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffInjury AOE/COELabor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Voluntary Recreational Activity ExceptionImplied Employer EncouragementObjective Reasonable BeliefDepartmental Boxing TeamFundraiser EventSergeant Mike Young
References
Case No. ADJ8321113
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

DANIEL YOUNG vs. COUNTY OF BUTTE, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and found that applicant Daniel Young did not sustain a compensable industrial injury. The WCAB determined that Young's injury, sustained during off-duty jumping jacks at home, was a result of voluntary participation in an athletic activity not reasonably expected or required by his employment as a correctional sergeant. This decision relied on Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) and precedent established in *City of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)*, which held that a general expectation of maintaining physical fitness is insufficient for compensability. Therefore, Young's claim was denied as non-compensable.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)Ezzy testoff-duty recreational activityvoluntary participationreasonable expectancy of employmentcorrectional sergeantstrenuous physical contactsfitness testJenneiahnWilson
References
Case No. ADJ10551600
Regular
Mar 02, 2018

JOSE TORRES vs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the primary treating physician's opinion, which formed the basis of the award, was not supported by substantial evidence. The physician's impairment ratings for the applicant's neck and back were based on outdated strength testing results from 1.5 years prior to his report and conflicted with more recent findings. The Board found the physician's examination inadequate, thus rescinding the award and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award OpinionPermanent Disability RatingSubstantial EvidencePrimary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorJamar TestingOutdated Testing ResultsInadequate Examination
References
Case No. FRE 0191984
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

MARIA ROMERO vs. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a dispute over lien claimant Schroeder Chiropractic North's payment for services rendered to applicant Maria Romero. Both the defendant and the lien claimant petitioned for reconsideration of an amended findings and award. The Board granted reconsideration, amending the award to allow payment for chiropractic treatment from January 6, 2005, to October 18, 2006, while disallowing payment for specific services like manual muscle testing and radiography.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantChiropractic TreatmentManual Muscle TestingRadiography TestsOrthoticsKnee BraceQualified Medical EvaluatorStipulations
References
Case No. ADJ744923 (ANA 0385182)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

CHARLES BUFFINGTON III vs. FACTORY MUTUAL, INFRARED TESTING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Factory Mutual seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision finding Liberty Mutual provided coverage for Infrared Testing, Inc. during the applicant's injury period. Factory admits it sold its interest in Infrared before the cumulative injury period, arguing Liberty's coverage stipulation was a mistake. The Board dismissed Factory's petition, finding Factory lacks standing as it had no interest in the employer after August 2, 2000. The Board also indicated it would have denied the petition on the merits due to Liberty's stipulation and the elapsed premium collection period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersStipulationCoverage disputeMistake in coverageSale of interestUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundStandingAggrieved party
References
Case No. LAO 0829008
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

CHRISTINA D. SALCEDO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order denying invasive diagnostic tests was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal due to potential due process issues and the need to fully develop the record on causation. The decision deferred the issue of diagnostic tests, affirming other aspects of the WCJ's order and returning the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalDiagnostic TestsInvasiveCompelUrological InjuryCompensable ConsequenceDue ProcessMedical Proof
References
Case No. MON 316253
Regular
Apr 21, 2008

DAVID S. FITZGERALD vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA/EDD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order for the State Compensation Insurance Fund to pay for medical tests requested by an Independent Medical Examiner. The Board found that the applicant has the right to refuse testing, and as no refusal has occurred, the defendant has suffered no prejudice. The petition was deemed timely filed, but the merits did not support removal at this stage.

Petition for removalOrder Revision of AwardIndependent Medical ExaminerMedical testingApplicant's authorizationLabor Code section 40561Unreasonable refusalAdverse consequencesHarm or prejudiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ8118127
Regular
Apr 24, 2015

JUANA PONCE DE MAULEON vs. HARRIS WOOLF CALIFORNIA ALMONDS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior finding. The WCAB determined that EMG/NCS diagnostic testing requested by the applicant's primary treating physician constitutes medical treatment. Therefore, this testing is subject to Utilization Review (UR) and subsequent Independent Medical Review (IMR), rather than being classified as a medical-legal expense adjudicated by the WCAB. The employer's petition for reconsideration was granted on this basis.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewElectromyographyNerve Conduction StudyPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical TreatmentMedical-Legal ExpensesFindings & OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 150 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