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. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ9757215
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

CHRISTOPHER COLLINS vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Christopher Collins, challenging Formal Rating Instructions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Removal, clarifying that it is not the proper procedural vehicle for objecting to rating instructions. The WCAB noted that pursuant to Rule 10602, a timely objection must be made directly to the Workers' Compensation Judge. Therefore, the WCAB is remanding the matter to the trial level to have the Petition for Removal treated as a timely objection.

Petition for RemovalFormal Rating InstructionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJObjectionTrial LevelDismissedTimelyRule 10602
References
0
Case No. ADJ3673382 (AHM 0084473) ADJ1727200 (AHM 0085831) ADJ4050086 (AHM 0085856) ADJ2402991 (AHM 0085857) ADJ1361609 (AHM 0085858) ADJ700319 (AHM 0085827) ADJ1199908 (AHM 0085828) ADJ2455910 (AHM 0085829) ADJ1533147 (AHM 0085855)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

DOUGLAS BOULWARE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGLES FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision due to acknowledged errors by the WCJ, including a miscalculation of the applicant's life pension, and procedural issues raised by the defendant regarding service of rating instructions. The case involves multiple injury claims to various body parts over a long period, with complex apportionment issues. The matter is returned to the trial level for new formal rating instructions, proper service, opportunity for cross-examination, and a new decision addressing all contentions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDouglas BoulwareCounty of Los Angeles Fire DepartmentIntercare Insurance Servicesfirefighterindustrial injuryskinhearingshoulderselbows
References
2
Case No. ANA 0402832
Regular
Jul 02, 2008

JOANN RAEKER vs. TSUCHIYAMA KAINO SUN-CARTER, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed a prior award, except for the permanent disability rating. The Board found that due process required further proceedings at the trial level regarding the permanent disability rating because the defendant was not properly served with the formal rating instructions. The case is remanded to the WCJ for a new decision on permanent disability.

Tsusohiya Kaino Sun-CarterSt. Paul Travelers Insurance CompanyFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Disability RatingPenaltyAttorney FeeReconsiderationWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ1679104 (LBO 0387820)
Regular
Aug 26, 2010

GUADALUPE FREGOSO vs. INTEGRAL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a permanent disability rating for an applicant injured on August 1, 2006. The defendant argued the rating was erroneous because the administrative law judge (WCJ) instructed the disability evaluator to rate the treating physician's report without referencing the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the WCJ's instructions were based on the physician's opinion, which complied with the AMA Guides, and the evaluator's rating followed those instructions. The Board also corrected a clerical error regarding the attorney fee calculation.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationFindings and Awardtemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentnon-industrial causesindustrial injurynecklow back
References
1
Case No. ADJ360205 (LBO 0384980)
Regular
Aug 05, 2010

Gurdev Malhotra vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES FAIRVIEW; Legally Uninsured, CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's advisory opinion concerning permanent disability rating for grip loss. Defendant argued the WCJ erred by allowing rating for grip loss when range of motion was present, and that the QME's reports did not support grip loss rating. The Board rescinded the WCJ's findings, remanding the case for further proceedings to ensure the WCJ follows the established process for issuing rating instructions based on substantial medical evidence, as clarified in *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. The ultimate determination of permanent disability requires a proper QME opinion and subsequent rating instructions from the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGurdev MalhotraState of California Department of Developmental ServicesLegally UninsuredContract ServicesPermanent Disability RatingGrip LossAMA GuidesQualified Medical EvaluatorQME
References
1
Case No. ADJ6703389
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

JEFFERY BURKE vs. HOME DEPOT, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Applicant Jeffery Burke's Petition for Reconsideration. Burke sought to overturn a prior award, claiming a violation of due process because he and his attorney did not receive the formal rating instructions and rating. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that service of these documents on Burke's attorney at the correct address was presumed to have been completed. Therefore, no due process violation occurred, and reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHome DepotLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ6703389Bakersfield District OfficeAdministrative Law JudgeFindings Orders and AwardAgreed Medical EvaluatorsDr. Bruce Fishman
References
1
Case No. ADJ4648769 (RIV0066289)
Regular
Mar 11, 2009

MARLON AGUIRRE vs. JACK IN THE BOX, CNA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding 41% permanent disability for a left knee injury. The Board rescinded the award because the judge's permanent disability rating was not supported by the evidence, specifically the Agreed Medical Examiner's finding of only 17% whole person impairment. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including formal DEU rating instructions. Additionally, the Board noted the defendant's argument for a 15% reduction in benefits appears inapplicable to the 2004 injury date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ4648769Marlon AguirreJack in the BoxCNA Insurance CompanyReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuryLeft Knee
References
0
Case No. ADJ6662275
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

DARRIN BEAN vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a skin cancer injury. The applicant contests the testimony of an independent medical expert, Dr. Brigham, who offered an opinion on his impairment rating that differed from the agreed medical evaluator's (AME). The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, ruling that Dr. Brigham's testimony was inadmissible as he was neither an AME nor a treating physician and his testimony was not in rebuttal to formal rating instructions. Consequently, Dr. Brigham's testimony was stricken, the prior order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings based solely on admissible medical evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent Disability RatingClass 1 ImpairmentClass 2 ImpairmentClass 3 ImpairmentMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRebuttal Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,452 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