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. ADJ12294911
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

KHADIJAH BROWN vs. REGINALD AJAKWE, MD, RAYMOND TATEVOSSIAN, MD, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Khadijah Brown sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and that a good faith personnel action defense was established. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the WCJ erroneously concluded applicant did not sustain injury to her psyche AOE/COE and failed to recognize objective evidence of harassment. The Board rescinded the original findings and substituted new findings, determining that applicant did sustain injury to her psyche AOE/COE and that this injury resulted from actual events of employment. The issue of the defendant's good faith personnel action defense was deferred for further proceedings.

AOE/COEpsychiatric injuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(b)(1)actual events of employmentharassmentgood faith personnel actionVerga v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.racial epithetsuspensiontermination
References
8
Case No. ADJ9368625
Regular
Dec 14, 2015

JOHN VEGA vs. SODEXO, INC., by INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original findings of fact. The defendant sought reconsideration arguing no substantial medical evidence supported the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and that the findings failed to specify the injured body part. The Board affirmed the AOE/COE finding, adopting the WCJ's credible testimony and contemporaneous medical records supporting a back injury on February 26, 2014. The amended finding specified the injury was to applicant's back.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactMedical EvidenceLabor Code Section 5313Body PartCredibility DeterminationsFloor TechnicianJanitorWork-Related Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ10810340
Regular
Jan 04, 2018

DUSTIN RAMIREZ vs. VIASYSTEMS/TTM TECHNOLOGIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration by the defendant, Viasystems/TTM Technologies, challenging a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ's decision addressed statute of limitations, lack of prejudice, and date of injury, but not the ultimate issue of whether the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board denied the petition because it was filed from an interlocutory order, not a final decision on AOE/COE. While the Board agreed that the WCJ's findings on the statute of limitations, notice, and date of injury were appealable, it ultimately denied reconsideration based on the WCJ's report, which found that the record required further development on the crucial AOE/COE issue.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionWCJ ReportFinal OrderSubstantive RightsThreshold IssueStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Date of Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ7336122
Regular
Sep 19, 2011

MAXIMINO ULTRERAS vs. COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEMS

The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of an order vacating submission and appointing a physician due to inadequate medical evidence. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding no irreparable harm. However, it granted reconsideration to rescind the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Board determined that substantial medical evidence was lacking to support the AOE/COE finding and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationVacating SubmissionAppointing Regular PhysicianL.C. § 5701AOE/COECumulative InjuryMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ9859900
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

KRSYTOL LARTEY vs. FOREVER 21, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleged injury to her throat and voice due to her employment with Forever 21. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), arguing the medical examiner's opinion lacked substantial evidence. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the QME's reports and deposition testimony provided a reasoned opinion based on examination and history. The Board concluded that the QME's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the AOE/COE finding.

AOE/COEOtolaryngology QMEAlfred N. RovenMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusMRSAIndustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDust exposure
References
2
Case No. ADJ9056626
Regular
Apr 16, 2014

MARIA CALDERON, MARIA DELMI CALDERON vs. DANIEL TARVER, SUTTER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Maria Calderon's workers' compensation claim for an injury sustained as a housekeeper. The applicant alleged a head injury when a glass table shattered, causing her to slip and fall on a patio. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the evidence did not support the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determination and finding of injury AOE/COE. The Board gave great weight to the ALJ's finding that the applicant was a credible witness despite minor discrepancies in the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeAOE/COECredibility FindingPetition DenialEmployer NegligenceMedical TreatmentHoly Cross Medical CenterOliveview Medical Center
References
4
Case No. ADJ13261327
Regular
Sep 19, 2025

KEVIN SARIAN vs. CITY OF GLENDALE, ADMINSURE

Applicant Kevin Sarian, a senior library supervisor for the City of Glendale, sustained injuries after slipping and falling while returning from an off-premises meal break during which he discussed personnel issues with a co-worker. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The defendant, City of Glendale, petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the applicant was not providing a benefit to his employer at the time of injury. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, finding the discussions constituted a benefit to the employer and that the injury was AOE/COE, and thus affirmed the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders with an amendment to Finding 2.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3600(a)(2)Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSalaried EmployeePersonnel IssuesLibrary SupervisorMeal Break
References
11
Case No. ADJ12582828
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

TERRY KELLY vs. SAFEWAY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts. The primary dispute centers on the applicant's occupational group number, with the applicant claiming "butcher" (420) and the defendant arguing "meat cutter" (322), impacting permanent disability ratings. The Board granted reconsideration, finding insufficient evidence to determine the occupational group number and therefore deferring permanent disability for all affected body parts pending further development of the record. The finding of injury AOE/COE to the applicant's cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, bilateral elbows, and bilateral wrists was upheld.

Occupational Group NumberMeat CutterButcherCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceFurther DevelopmentBody PartsWPI Ratings
References
11
Case No. ADJ9163440
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

INOCENCIO PEDROSA vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleged injury to his right ankle and cervical spine from operating a pallet jack. The defendant disputed the injury AOE/COE, primarily citing surveillance footage and alleged inconsistencies in applicant's testimony. The WCJ found injury AOE/COE based on Dr. Sadler's report, which interpreted the surveillance video as confirming applicant's head hitting a wall, despite the WCJ finding Dr. Sadler's report not substantial due to his failure to consider prior injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further development of the record, finding no substantial evidence to support the injury finding. Additionally, defense counsel was admonished for improperly submitting extraneous documents with the Petition for Reconsideration.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJsubstantial evidencecredible witnesssurveillance footagedeposition testimonyprimary treating physicianpanel qualified medical examinersupplemental report
References
7
Case No. ADJ398757 (LBO 0393631)
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

GARY E. MORGAN vs. REYNOLDS BUICK, GMC & PONTIAC, ICW GROUP

The applicant sought removal, arguing that proceeding to trial on injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) without a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) opinion would be prejudicial. The defendants asserted factual defenses and their due process rights. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding that the applicant carries the burden of proof for AOE/COE. Therefore, the Board amended the trial order to exclude AOE/COE, allowing only the issue of travel expenses for a QME evaluation to be tried.

Petition for RemovalAOE/COEQualified Medical EvaluatorPQMECompensabilityTravel ExpensesLabor Code Section 4060Burden of ProofIndustrial InjuryMedical-Legal Evaluation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,638 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