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. ADJ367916 (SFO 0438710)
Regular
Jan 04, 2017

KARAN SINGH vs. UNITED PRODUCTS, INC, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK, CMS, FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a judge's award of 100% permanent total disability for applicant Karan Singh. The defendant argued the judge improperly relied on a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report and that the evidence did not support industrial causation for incontinence. The Board rescinded the original decision because the trial exhibits were not properly identified, making meaningful review impossible. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to establish a proper record and issue a new decision.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont Indemnity CompanyliquidationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorDr. Steven Feinbergindustrial causationfecal incontinence
References
Case No. AHM 097527
Regular
Jul 24, 2007

WILLIAM SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCRMA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding of 100% permanent disability for the applicant's severe back and internal injuries. However, the Board rescinded the denial of the employer's credit for the applicant's third-party recovery and remanded the case. The remanded issues include determining comparative negligence between the employer and the third-party truck company, the employer's credit claim, and the allocation of settlement proceeds, particularly concerning loss of consortium.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryUtility WorkerPermanent DisabilityThird Party RecoveryCreditLoss of ConsortiumComparative NegligenceIndependent Contractor
References
Case No. ADJ9549789, ADJ10928268
Regular
May 05, 2025

IVAN MIRAMONTES vs. LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Applicant Ivan Miramontes sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award from January 27, 2025, which found industrial injury to his psyche and specific body parts with assigned permanent disabilities. Applicant raised contentions including defective service, mischaracterization of his primary orthopedic doctor, alleged attorney failure, and reliance on unsubstantial medical evidence, particularly regarding Dr. Faddoul's report. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit specified exhibits into evidence to correct a clerical error by the WCJ. The Board otherwise affirmed the WCJ's findings, concluding that the petition was timely filed and the applicant's other contentions lacked merit.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsycheHipsChestNeckWristShouldersPermanent Disability
References
Case No. ADJ4317262 (ANA 0327568)
Regular
Apr 13, 2009

JOSE GONZALEZ vs. BURR ROOFING, INC., SCIF INSURED SANTA ANA

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, primarily arguing the permanent disability rating undervalued his urological condition and the WCJ erred in not crediting vocational rehabilitation expert opinion. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to award additional attorney fees for temporary disability benefits. While the majority affirmed the WCJ's original findings on permanent disability, a dissenting commissioner argued the urological condition was significantly underestimated and requested a new rating.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJose GonzalezBurr RoofingSCIF Insured Santa Anapermanent disabilityapportionmentrooferupper back injurymid back injurylow back injury
References
Case No. ADJ1784264 (MON 0302991)
Regular
Nov 21, 2016

GIRGIS FAM vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, partially overturning the original decision. The Board found that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his bilateral legs as initially determined. However, the Board affirmed the finding of total permanent disability due to diminished earning capacity and inability to compete in the open labor market, attributing it to lumbar spine and urinary incontinence injuries with full duplication. The Board also modified the temporary disability period and established a new permanent and stationary date of September 17, 2004, returning certain issues like attorney fees and home healthcare costs to the trial level for further determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardindustrial injurybilateral legscustodial supervisorurinary incontinencetotally and permanently disableddiminished future earning capacityapportionment
References
Case No. ADJ9225207
Regular
Dec 07, 2018

Javier Lopez vs. Sturtevant Farms, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case concerns Javier Lopez's claim for 100% permanent disability due to a June 7, 2013 injury to his corticospinal tract, resulting in incontinence and leg pain. The defendant, Sturtevant Farms, sought reconsideration, arguing prior permanent disability awards should be deducted, earnings were misrepresented, the date of birth was incorrect, and attorney fees were improperly awarded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the judge's findings based on the lack of established overlap between prior and current disabilities and sufficient evidence for earnings and date of birth. The Board also noted the defendant lacked standing to challenge attorney fees.

ADJ9225207Permanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code section 4664(c)(1)Labor Code section 4663Labor Code section 4664(b)corticospinal tract injurybowel and bladder incontinencecompensable consequence psyche injuryaverage weekly earnings
References
Case No. ADJ1784264 (MON 0302991) ADJ2898466 (MON 0339769)
Regular
Oct 14, 2011

GIRGIS FAM vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, permissibly self-insured, Administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services

This case concerns the selection of a child care provider for a permanently and totally disabled applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB reversed the judge's decision, allowing the applicant to select his own child care provider, reasoning that this service is personal, similar to selecting a physician. The Board emphasized that the continuity of care and applicant's confidence in the provider outweigh the employer's desire to use a licensed and bonded provider selected by them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and AwardPermanently totally disabledCaretaking servicesChild care servicesGardening servicesPool maintenance servicesStructural modificationsCauda-equina syndrome
References
Case No. ADJ611155 (SRO 0137927)
Regular
Sep 14, 2015

DANIEL OVERBY vs. DUCKWORTH CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: This case concerns a $100\%$ permanent disability award for an applicant who sustained a severe head injury in 2005, followed by a subsequent lumbar injury in 2006. The defendant sought apportionment of the permanent disability award, arguing the lumbar injury contributed to the applicant's unemployability. However, the Appeals Board found the medical evidence regarding apportionment between the two injuries insufficient and remanded the case for further development of the record. A dissenting opinion argued that the evidence supported a $100\%$ award without apportionment, as the primary disabilities were clearly linked to the initial head injury.

Industrial injuryPermanent disabilityApportionmentSubsequent injuryHead injuryBrain injuryNeurological deficitsSeizuresIncontinenceSexual dysfunction
References
Case No. ADJ6603030
Regular
Jul 20, 2018

JEFF DEATON vs. SUPERIOR AMERICAN FLEET, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the petition, upholding a prior finding that one-on-one sitter services provided by a lien claimant were reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The defendant argued the WCJ erred in disregarding utilization review and a preferred provider organization agreement, but the WCAB found these arguments unpersuasive. The WCAB also noted the defendant waived the issue of a second review of medical bills by failing to raise it earlier.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWCJlien claimantCare Meridianone-on-one sitter servicesreasonable and necessary medical treatmentpenaltyLabor Code 4603.2
References
Case No. ADJ8861708
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

JACQUELINE MURCH vs. THE RULE COMPANY, INC.; HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that industrial injury was limited to her lumbar spine, arguing the trial should not have adjudicated the extent of injury to other claimed body parts. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the lumbar spine injury but rescinding the denial of injury to other parts, deferring that issue for future consideration due to due process concerns. The Board found that issues beyond the stated trial issues of AOE/COE and temporary disability were improperly adjudicated without notice. The claim's denial by the employer was found not to be improper, and that finding was affirmed.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineThoracic SpineHipsHeadachesNeurological DisorderSleep Disorder
References
Showing 1-10 of 21 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