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

Psihoyos v. National Geographic Society

This case concerns a copyright infringement dispute brought by Louis Psihoyos against The National Geographic Society (NGS). Psihoyos alleged that NGS infringed copyrights in his photograph of a dinosaur fossil and an accompanying illustration by publishing similar works in its magazine. NGS moved for summary judgment, arguing the similarities were due to unprotectible elements like common subject matter, or covered by doctrines such as merger and scenes a faire. The court analyzed the substantial similarity of the photographs, illustrations, and overall layout, finding that protectible elements were not substantially similar. Ultimately, the court granted NGS's motion for summary judgment and denied Psihoyos's cross-motion.

Copyright InfringementPhotographyIllustrationSummary JudgmentSubstantial SimilarityMerger DoctrineScenes A FaireIntellectual PropertyArtistic WorksDinosaur Fossil
References
33
Case No. ADJ7422993
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

SHIRLEY LESCALLETT vs. WAL-MART, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, YORK RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought to select a pain management specialist as her primary treating physician. The employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) did not have any pain management specialists within the 15-mile/30-minute access standard for primary physicians, though it did have specialists within a 30-mile/60-minute radius. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that if an applicant chooses a specialist for their primary care, the MPN must provide at least three physicians of that specialty within a 15-mile/30-minute radius. Since the defendant's MPN failed to meet this standard for pain management specialists, the applicant was permitted to choose one outside the MPN. A dissenting opinion argued that the 30-mile/60-minute standard for specialists should apply, allowing the applicant to select a physician within that broader radius from the MPN.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialistAccess StandardsAdministrative Director's RulePain Management PhysicianGeographic RadiusLabor CodeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ1210556 (AGO 0018589)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWIN MILLER vs. KEEBLER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decisions regarding medical mileage and penalties. The Board found the WCJ failed to properly consider statutory factors in determining a "reasonable geographic area" for the applicant's medical treatment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decisions and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision addressing all outstanding issues, including the definition of a reasonable geographic area for treatment.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical MileageReasonable Geographic AreaLabor Code Section 4600Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)WCJBoltonRamirez
References
2
Case No. ADJ5744485 ADJ6979008 ADJ6979031
Regular
Sep 16, 2010

BRIAN MENICUCCI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision clarifies that injured employees are not geographically restricted when selecting a physician within a defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). While general treatment under Labor Code section 4600(c) has a reasonable geographic limitation, this restriction does not apply to MPN physicians. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, holding that an employee can choose any MPN physician, regardless of distance, after their initial visit. The case specifically avoided ruling on travel expense reimbursement or injuries sustained during travel to the chosen physician.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNreasonable geographic areaLabor Code section 4600(c)Labor Code section 4616 et seq.Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)Administrative Director Rule 9767.6(e)physician of his or her choicestatutory constructionstatutory omission
References
3
Case No. ADJ20141319
Regular
Jun 20, 2025

CHARLES FRANKLIN vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

Applicant Charles Franklin sustained a low back injury. Defendant County of San Bernardino filed a petition for reconsideration concerning a scrivener's error in the case number and the geographic reasonableness of the applicant's chosen treating physician, Dr. Nassos. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the case number from ADJ20141320 to ADJ20141319. However, the Board denied the substantive arguments, affirming the original decision that the defendant failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of Dr. Nassos's geographic location for treatment by not presenting evidence of a suitable alternative closer to the applicant's residence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5909TIMELY ACTIONELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMTRANSMISSION DATEBUSINESS DAYNOTICE OF TRANSMISSIONREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONSCRIVENER'S ERROR
References
5
Case No. ADJ532181 (SFO 0438716) ADJ250509 (SFO 0242560) ADJ6545137
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

MICHAEL THOMAS, vs. SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Permissibly Self-Insured,

This case involved an applicant seeking treatment from a highly specialized surgeon, Dr. Matsen, located in Seattle, for a complex shoulder revision. The original decision denied authorization for Dr. Matsen, deeming Seattle outside a reasonable geographic area, and excluded a crucial report from the applicant's treating physician, Dr. Osborn. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, admitting Dr. Osborn's report, which strongly supported Dr. Matsen's expertise and the inadequacy of local Bay Area surgeons for this complex case. Based on the applicant's medical history and the availability of specialized treatment, the Board reversed the original decision, finding Dr. Matsen to be within a reasonable geographic area.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable geographic areaTreating surgeonAdministrative Director Rule 9780Labor Code section 4600Orthopedic surgeonTotal shoulder replacementRevision surgeryMedical historyPhysician competency
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moritt v. Governor of New York

This memorandum decision addresses the constitutionality of New York State Election Law, specifically subdivision 5 of section 136 and subdivision 2 of section 131, which pertain to geographical distribution requirements for signatures needed to place a candidate on a primary ballot. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the State may constitutionally mandate a showing of state-wide support without imposing a substantial burden on primary ballot access. The requirement of 100 signatures from each of 20 Congressional districts was deemed not unconstitutionally onerous, serving the legitimate state interest of preventing ballot manipulation and ensuring broad-based numerical and geographical support. The decision also found no merit in the challenge to subdivision 2 of section 131 of the Election Law, asserting it does not violate the one man-one vote principle or the New York State Constitution.

ConstitutionalityElection LawPrimary BallotSignature RequirementsGeographical DistributionEqual ProtectionOne Man-One VoteBallot AccessState InterestPolitical Candidate
References
7
Case No. ADJ 4564224
Regular
Sep 17, 2008

MARIA TAPIA vs. SKILL MASTER STAFFING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision on a lien claim for outpatient surgery services, finding the claimant's billing unreasonable despite the defendant's lack of evidence of fees accepted by other surgery centers in the same geographic area.

WCABEn BancLien ClaimantSB Surgery CenterLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyKunz v. PattersonReasonable ValueOutpatient Surgery CenterBurden of ProofRebuttal Evidence
References
10
Case No. ADJ7274574
Regular
Mar 25, 2015

REBECCA WADE vs. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's scheduled re-evaluation in Bakersfield was not an unreasonable geographic distance and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyPQME relocationreevaluationunreasonable geographic area
References
5
Case No. VNO 0396976
Regular
Feb 01, 2008

MARIA MARTINEZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCJ erred by applying the 2004 Outpatient Surgery Center Fee Schedule; instead, the court must determine a reasonable fee based on the *Kunz* precedent. This requires developing the record to consider factors like the provider's usual fees and geographic area rates, not solely the fee schedule.

KunzSB Surgery Centerlien claimantreasonable feeoutpatient surgery center fee scheduleprima facie evidenceWCJAppeals Boardpermanent disabilityfuture medical treatment
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 49 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