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

Buchanan v. Harris

June R. Buchanan appealed a jury verdict and judgment that awarded her $4,600 for personal injuries and property damage resulting from a motor vehicle collision where the defendant admitted liability. Buchanan contested the verdict's inadequacy, the exclusion of Dr. Arendall's testimony regarding the permanence of her injuries, and the allowance of cross-examination about her prior falsified job applications. The appellate court found no reversible error, affirming the trial court's decision. It concluded that the jury's assessment of damages was within its province, the exclusion of the medical testimony was harmless and cumulative, and cross-examination on Buchanan's credibility via her job applications was appropriate.

Motor Vehicle CollisionPersonal InjuryProperty DamageJury VerdictDamagesVerdict InadequacyAdditurExpert Medical TestimonyPermanence of InjuryCross-Examination
References
9
Case No. ADJ13475083
Regular
Feb 28, 2025

Miguel Garcia Perez vs. Opportunity Staffing, Inc.

Applicant Miguel Garcia Perez and defendant Opportunity Staffing, Inc. both sought reconsideration of a "Second Amended Findings and Award" from November 26, 2024. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the defendant's, also affirming the "Second Amended Findings and Award" with specific amendments. Key issues included applicant's earnings, temporary disability period, supplemental job displacement benefits, attorney's fees, and apportionment. The Board found the WCJ erred in not honoring the parties' stipulation of applicant being a maximum earner, deferred the issues of temporary disability length and attorney's fees for further development, and determined the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof for apportionment under Labor Code sections 4664 and 4663.

StipulationMaximum EarnerApportionmentTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationLabor CodeMedical EvidenceCausation
References
17
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1997

Abrams v. Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group, Inc.

Present and former African-American and Hispanic employees and unsuccessful job applicants filed a putative class action against Kelsey-Seybold Clinic and its associated entities, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas state law. Plaintiffs sought class certification for African-American applicants and employees seeking promotions/transfers. The court, presided over by Judge Rosenthal, denied the motion for class certification. The court found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) and the "grounds generally applicable to the class" requirement of Rule 23(b)(2), citing the individualized nature of the discrimination claims and insufficient evidence of a company-wide discriminatory policy.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactClass CertificationRule 23NumerosityCommonality
References
42
Case No. ADJ271398 (SFO 0505138)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

Fernando Martinez vs. D.H. SMITH COMPANY, INC., ICW GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and rescinded the original denial of benefits. The Board found that the applicant's injuries sustained in a vehicle collision arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment, despite his unlicensed driving contrary to employer instructions. The Court held that performing an authorized activity in an unauthorized manner does not remove the injury from the course of employment when the employer provides transportation to a job site. The Board denied the defendant's petition, affirming that the "going and coming rule" did not bar compensation in this instance.

going and coming rulescope of employmentcourse of employmentarising out of employmentemployer provided transportationunauthorized mannermaterial deviationpublic highwayincreased riskLabor Code section 3600
References
28
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Ryan v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a highway maintenance worker, sought enhanced disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries in 2007, 2010, and 2011 while performing job duties. His application, based on these three incidents, was initially denied by respondent Comptroller, who found none of the incidents qualified as accidents under the Retirement and Social Security Law. This decision overruled a Hearing Officer's ruling that the July 2011 incident was an accident. The court, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, reviewed the Comptroller's determination. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Comptroller's finding that the injuries were not 'accidents,' as they occurred during regular job duties or involved reasonably anticipated risks. Consequently, the Comptroller's determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability retirement benefitsEnhanced disabilityJob-related injuriesAccident definitionRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Comptroller determinationSubstantial evidenceAnticipated risksHighway maintenance worker
References
15
Case No. ADJ6872068
Regular
Sep 11, 2012

OSCAR ORNELAS CASTANEDA vs. FELIS RUELAS, individually, and dba HAPPY'S MOBILE CAR WASH

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant injured in a vehicle accident while traveling to a job site. The defendant argued the applicant was an independent contractor and the injury occurred during his commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant was an employee based on the employer's control over work details and provision of tools. The Board also ruled the "going and coming" rule did not bar compensation as the travel was part of the applicant's job duties, not his personal commute.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationEmployee vs. Independent ContractorBorello factorsGoing and Coming RuleAOE/COEIndustrial InjuryPressure WasherDairy BarnsCompany Vehicle
References
3
Case No. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Brigandi v. Town & Country Linoleum & Carpet

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its compensation carrier against decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The decedent, a carpet layer, died from cardiac arrest during work, with an autopsy revealing underlying coronary atherosclerotic disease. His widow was awarded death benefits. The employer’s carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), asserting a preexisting permanent physical impairment. However, the Board determined that there was no evidence that the decedent’s heart condition hindered his job potential before his death, thus releasing the Special Disability Fund from liability and holding the compensation carrier responsible. The employer's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board, leading to these appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board rationally found no proof that the decedent's heart disease impaired his job potential, a necessary condition for reimbursement under WCL § 15 (8) (d).

Special Disability FundPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentCardiac ArrestCoronary Atherosclerotic DiseaseDeath Benefits ClaimEmployer ReimbursementCarrier LiabilityBoard Decision ReviewAppellate AffirmationMedical Evidence Interpretation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 15,284 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