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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ10278736
Regular
Nov 15, 2019

UFRACINA CERVANTES vs. STRATEGIC RESTAURANT COMPANY II, LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of $75\%$ permanent disability. The applicant argued for $100\%$ permanent disability based on vocational and medical expert opinions. The Board found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for total disability due to insufficient substantial medical evidence. A dissenting commissioner believed the record was undeveloped, particularly regarding a requested functional capacity evaluation and a psychiatric evaluation, and that further development was necessary for substantial justice.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertFunctional Capacity EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorResidual Functional CapacityPain Management SpecialistPsychologist
References
Case No. ADJ7399938 ADJ7068967
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

OLENA GARCIA vs. RESIDENCE INN, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further development of the record. The initial award found permanent total disability based on a vocational expert's opinion, but the Board found this opinion lacked substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the medical expert's supplemental report was not based on a current evaluation, and the vocational expert's conclusions, relying on that report, were therefore also flawed. The matter is remanded to allow for a current medical evaluation and reassessment of vocational rehabilitation and diminished earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityJoint Findings and AwardVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceScheduled RatingFunctional Capacity EvaluationAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentModified Work
References
Case No. ADJ8393129
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

THOMAS HASSON vs. ANN TAYLOR, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of permanent total disability due to cumulative trauma. The defendant argued the treating physician's report was unsubstantial regarding causation and functional capacity, and that apportionment to a pre-existing condition was wrongly disregarded. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the permanent total disability finding based on the applicant's inability to benefit from vocational rehabilitation. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the applicant's medical restrictions precluded him from returning to full-time employment in the open labor market.

cumulative traumapermanent total disabilitymedical evidencevocational evidencefunctional capacity evaluationresidual functional capacityapportionmentpre-existing conditionsubstantial medical evidencelabor market
References
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
Case No. ADJ10033983 ADJ11112700
Regular
Jul 08, 2019

PABLO PEREZ vs. TAYLOR FARMS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Pablo Perez's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior finding that a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) was not a reasonable and necessary medical-legal expense. The WCAB found that an FCE, recommended by Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator Dr. Ali Soozani to assess permanent impairment, provides crucial objective data not fully captured by subjective complaints or a standard physical examination. The Board reasoned that while a physical therapist conducts the FCE, this is permissible under Labor Code section 3209.5 for medical treatment and does not violate Labor Code section 4628 when viewed as a distinct diagnostic tool supporting the QME's overall evaluation. Consequently, the WCAB issued a new Finding of Fact and Order deeming the FCE reasonable and necessary.

Functional Capacity EvaluationMedical-Legal ExpensePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent ImpairmentActivities of Daily LivingSubstantial EvidenceAlmaraz/GuzmanLabor Code Section 4628Diagnostic ToolMedical Opinion
References
Case No. ADJ10336191
Regular
Jan 18, 2023

JEFFERY BLUM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the finding that the applicant sustained new and further permanent disability to his knees. The employer's arguments regarding apportionment for the lumbar spine and bias of the medical evaluator were rejected, as the lumbar spine issue was settled by prior stipulation and bias was not raised timely. The Board found the medical evaluator's opinions on knee impairment constituted substantial evidence, despite a functional capacity evaluation.

New and further disabilityPermanent disabilityApportionmentStipulations with Request for AwardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Lumbar spineBilateral knee impairmentSubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)
References
Case No. ADJ2030253 (LAO 0885210)
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

GI KIM vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/PROBATION DEPARTMENT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's finding that a functional capacity evaluation was a reasonable and necessary medical-legal expense for proving new and further disability. The Board upheld the award of $997.89 for the evaluation, plus a 10% penalty and interest, as the defendant did not prevail in contesting the issue despite timely objection. However, the Board amended the decision to disallow reimbursement for the lien claimant's activation fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLien ClaimantFunctional Capacity EvaluationMedical-Legal ExpenseContested ClaimNew and Further DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorJoint Letter
References
Case No. ADJ358084 (OAK 0320488)
Regular
Dec 19, 2008

Samuel Arledge vs. RGW Construction, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant sustained 39% permanent disability. The applicant argued for 100% disability based on a vocational expert's opinion and Labor Code section 4662. The Board found the WCJ erred by not fully considering the vocational expert's opinion, specifically regarding the applicant's employability and earning capacity post-injury. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to re-evaluate the vocational expert's findings and determine the applicant's total disability status.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 4662Qualified Medical EvaluatorImpairment RatingWPIFunctional Capacity EvaluationTransferable Skills
References
Case No. ADJ57827871
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

GARY BEITCH vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to halt trial proceedings due to incomplete discovery, specifically a functional capacity and psychological evaluation. The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Applicant can raise discovery issues with the trial judge and re-address them upon reconsideration if necessary. Removal is an extraordinary remedy and is rarely granted.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJFunctional Capacity EvaluationPsychological EvaluationInjury DateReconsiderationIrreparable HarmPrejudiceDeclaration of Readiness
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,718 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