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
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Case No. ADJ869205 (SAC 0294976) ADJ302322 (SAC 0354178)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

Patricia Rush vs. The Permanente Medical Group; Athens Administrators Concord

This case involves Patricia Rush claiming cumulative trauma injuries to her knees and back, among other body parts, against The Permanente Medical Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's findings of industrial causation for knee injuries lacked substantial medical evidence, with conflicting and uncertain Qualified Medical Evaluator opinions. The Board rescinded the prior findings and ordered further development of the medical record, suggesting an Agreed Medical Examiner or a court-appointed physician to resolve the causation issue for the knee injuries. The matter is returned to the trial level for a new final determination after the record is further developed on all issues, including injury causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanente Medical GroupAthens Administratorscumulative trauma injurykneesbackshouldershandswristsindustrial causation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. ADJ8300605
Regular
Sep 12, 2013

LATOYA ARRINGTON, LATOYA ARRINGTON-ARTIS vs. SUPPORT MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUTTER HEALTH SACRAMENTO, SUTTER MEDICAL FOUNDATION

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied, respectively, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration was improperly taken from interlocutory orders and that removal was not warranted as the defendant failed to show irreparable harm or prejudice. The underlying dispute involves the WCJ's decision to order further development of the medical record after trial, despite the applicant's failure to object to the defendant's declaration of readiness. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which found no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to the defendant from the order to develop the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceAOE-COECumulative TraumaDeclaration of Readiness
References
10
Case No. ADJ11255525
Regular
Dec 02, 2019

GWENDOLYN JOHNIGAN vs. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

This case involves an applicant denied workers' compensation benefits for industrial injury to her right leg and knee, with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying her petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury, relying on a panel qualified medical evaluator's opinion that the work duties were insufficient to cause an injury. The applicant argued the medical evidence was not substantial and sought further development of the record. However, the WCAB found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof with substantial medical evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the medical evidence was insubstantial and required further development.

Petition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistSubstantial Medical EvidenceFurther DevelopmentSupplemental ReportingDeposition TestimonyIndustrial InjuryRight LegRight Knee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. SFO 0459441
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

FRANK DEOME vs. CALIFORNIA MEDICAL CENTER, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the previous award and returned the case for further proceedings because the record was insufficient to determine permanent disability and apportionment. The Board found that the WCJ's analysis of apportionment, particularly regarding a prior 1993 injury, was based on insufficient medical evidence and did not align with current legal standards. The case is remanded for further development of the medical record, potentially through an Agreed Medical Evaluation, and the WCJ will revisit all contentions after new evidence is presented.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDEOMECALIFORNIA MEDICAL CENTERINNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONSINDUSTRIAL INJURYBACK SURGERYPERMANENTLY DISABLEDCOMPLEX REGIONAL PAIN SYNDROMEVOCATIONAL REHABILITATIONPERMANENT AND STATIONARY
References
8
Case No. ADJ3858007 (SBR 0314079)
Regular
May 26, 2016

RONALD STEFFY vs. H STREET COLLISION CENTER, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal of an Order Vacating Submission. The judge vacated submission to further develop the record due to insufficient evidence, finding the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinions unpersuasive after reviewing medical records and sub rosa video evidence. The Board found the order did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as it allows for a complete adjudication of issues, including medication usage and permanent disability. Further medical-legal examinations were ordered to develop a record capable of supporting findings on impairment and causation.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)McDuffieLabor Code section 5701sub rosa videoinsubstantial evidencepermanent disabilitycausationvocational rehabilitation
References
5
Case No. ADJ9244473
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

LILIA TAMAYO vs. SERRA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, COMPWEST INSURANCE

This case involves Lilia Tamayo's workers' compensation claim against Serra Manufacturing Corporation. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated a trial submission to develop the medical record, specifically ordering panels of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). The defendant sought removal, arguing this was an inappropriate method for record development. The Appeals Board denied removal, agreeing with the WCJ that the record needed development but finding the ordered method of seeking supplemental opinions from the treating physician inappropriate based on prior precedent. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order for further development, though it did not specify the exact procedure pending further action.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionOrder for Further DevelopmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Orthopedic SurgeryPsychiatryIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryTrunk InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ1332200 (LAO 0710157) ADJ1749454 (LAO 0753825) ADJ1723599 (LAO 0710158)
Regular
Nov 11, 2011

EARLIE CHAMBERLAIN vs. CEDAR SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding insufficient medical evidence to determine industrial psychiatric injury due to incomplete records requested by both treating physicians. The Board also noted the WCJ may have misapplied the *Benson* doctrine regarding apportionment of the psychiatric injury across three separate industrial incidents. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the medical record and properly address causation and apportionment issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCedars Sinai Medical Centernursing communications technicianindustrial injurybilateral kneesbackteethjawdenturesleft upper extremity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,577 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