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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ3885285 (FRE 0248529) ADJ3795787 (FRE 0247126)
Regular
Dec 30, 2008

Larry Shores vs. CITY OF MADERA; ACCLAMATION FRESNO

This case concerns a worker's compensation claim for a back and spine injury sustained by Larry Shores. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded sanctions imposed on the defendant for litigation tactics, and rescinded a penalty for delayed temporary disability payments. However, it otherwise affirmed the finding of industrial injury, awarded penalties for unreasonable delay in medical treatment, and upheld the need for ongoing medical care, including surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLarry ShoresCity of MaderaAcclamation FresnoADJ3885285ADJ3795787Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ2401554 (FRE 023126)
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

JOSHUA GROSSMAN vs. ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the judge's decision and finding the defendant liable for self-procured medical treatment. The defendant failed to prove they properly transferred the applicant into their Medical Provider Network (MPN) and neglected or refused to provide reasonable treatment by failing to ensure MPN physician availability. Consequently, the applicant's self-procured treatment from the lien claimant is deemed reasonable and compensable. The defendant is liable for the reasonable cost of this treatment, plus interest and penalties.

MPNself-procured medical treatmentneglect or refusal to provide medical treatmentprimary treating physicianlien claimantreasonable medical treatmentAramark Uniform ServiceAce American Insurance CompanySan Joaquin Accident & Medical GroupKnight v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
References
Case No. ADJ7433042, ADJ7433045, ADJ7433048
Regular
Aug 06, 2013

MARIA GOMEZ vs. HARRIS RANCH BEEF CO., AIMS INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCJ disallowed the lien claimant's lien for medical treatment, finding that the lien claimant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, and its charges were reasonable. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the lien claimant did not meet its evidentiary burden, and denied the petition.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and Ordersubstantial evidencedisallowance of liensCompromise and Releaseuntimely serviceex parte communicationsubstantial medical evidencereasonable and necessary treatment
References
Case No. ADJ10789448
Regular
Mar 07, 2023

MARCELO CHAN HAU vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision denying liens for medical treatment provided by claimants Ira Reinherz Chiropractic Inc. and Sachet Pream. The Board found that the applicant received treatment within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) and that there was no evidence the defendant denied medical treatment or failed to comply with MPN regulations. Therefore, the defendant was not liable for the self-procured treatment provided by the lien claimants outside the MPN. The claimants' argument regarding procedural time requirements was also rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNLien ClaimantsFindings of Fact and OrderAdministrative Director RulesAOE/COEQualified Medical ExaminerQMEMaximum Medical Improvement
References
Case No. ADJ2460603 (OAK 0348588)
Regular
Aug 03, 2012

JOSE ROGER ABAN vs. CAL CENTURIAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba RWR CONSTRUCTION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding that a lien claimant was entitled to satisfaction of its lien. The Board found that while the defendant may have provided inadequate initial Medical Provider Network (MPN) notices, this deficiency did not result in the applicant being neglected or refused reasonable medical treatment. Because the applicant initially treated within the MPN and did not appear to have trouble accessing care due to the notices, the employer is not liable for self-procured treatment. Therefore, the lien claimant is not entitled to recover on its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Self-procured medical treatmentLien claimantCompromise and ReleaseNeglect or refusal to provide medical treatmentFindings and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ8286511
Regular
May 30, 2017

HECTOR SANCHEZ BARRAGAN vs. T&T MARKETING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that upheld an Independent Medical Review (IMR) denial of a Norco prescription. The applicant argued the IMR determination exceeded the Administrative Director's authority due to a plainly erroneous application of Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines. The WCAB denied the petition, adopting the trial judge's report which found the IMR reviewer correctly applied medical expertise to select relevant MTUS sections for chronic opioid use. The Board determined the applicant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of erroneous MTUS application or that the IMR decision was otherwise invalid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewNorcoMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleAdministrative DirectorLabor CodeChronic Pain Medical Treatment Guidelines
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,644 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