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. ADJ295143 (WCK 0071523) ADJ591167 (OAK 0323098) ADJ2362492 (WCK 0071521)
Regular
Feb 21, 2012

KEVIN HOLLINS vs. CUSTOM DRYWALL, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding applicant 100% permanently totally disabled. The Board affirmed the 100% disability finding based on a stipulation of the parties, finding no substantial evidence to support apportionment despite defendant's arguments. The Board also corrected a clerical error to reflect that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his groin and head. Consequently, the prior award for permanent disability benefits was affirmed with this amendment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award OrderIndustrial InjuryCompensable ConsequenceCCP 998Credit RightsEmployer NegligenceMedically Permanent and StationaryPermanently Totally Disabled
References
0
Case No. ADJ4669093
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

JAMES C. RIALS III vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION, AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order taking the matter off-calendar was not a final order subject to reconsideration. The WCAB treated the petition as one for removal and denied it, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal. The applicant sought to re-litigate permanent disability for his right groin, thigh, and hip injuries, issues previously decided and appealed. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which detailed the extensive history of the claim and noted these issues had already been litigated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Taking Off-CalendarFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportDisability Rating
References
5
Case No. ADJ7420955, ADJ6424323
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

WBC UNIVERSAL vs. ELECTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board award. The applicant sought to include permanent disability ratings for his right knee and meralgia paresthetica of the groin, which were denied by the WCJ. The Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) determined that while the applicant's October 2009 injury exacerbated his right knee, prior injuries were the cause of permanent disability. The AME also opined that the meralgia paresthetica was due to complications of thoracic outlet syndrome, unrelated to the claimed industrial injury. Therefore, the Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorAOE/COEPermanent DisabilityMeralgia ParestheticaThoracic Outlet SyndromeIndustrial ExacerbationPrior Injuries
References
0
Case No. ADJ3744023
Regular
May 15, 2009

JOSEPH CRABTREE vs. MITCHELL BERMAN CABINET MAKER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding an industrial injury to the applicant's abdomen/groin (hernia) and a resulting peripheral nerve injury causing 24% permanent disability. The defendant argued the peripheral nerve injury was not supported and the disability rating was incorrect due to misapplication of the AMA Guides. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report and finding that the medical evidence supported the peripheral nerve injury and the AMA Guides were correctly applied. The Board found the agreed medical evaluator's conclusions were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHerniaPeripheral Nerve InjuryPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)AMA GuidesPetition for ReconsiderationMedical EvidenceWCJ
References
4
Case No. ADJ9216410
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

RAMON CHACON ALCALA vs. SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL

This case involves a Sacramento County Jail inmate, Ramon Chacon Alcala, who claims an industrial injury to his back and groin from lifting dough in the jail bakery. Although the applicant's credibility as a historian was questioned, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge who concluded that medical evidence from examining physicians provided substantial support for an industrial injury. Despite applicant's credibility issues, the physicians' opinions on causation based on reasonable medical probability were deemed sufficient to uphold the award.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySacramento County JailInmateBakeryHerniaBack InjuryQualified Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ1421850 (FRE0216376)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

BILL CUSTER vs. SARA LEE BAKERY GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Sara Lee Bakery Group. The applicant sustained a knee and groin injury due to a broken bread tray, and the initial finding of misconduct was based on testimony about past practices. However, the Board found no evidence that the employer's executive or managing officers knew serious injury was probable or acted with reckless disregard for consequences. Consequently, the prior award finding serious and willful misconduct was rescinded, and a new decision was issued stating the injury was not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Findings and AwardReconsiderationRescindedApplicantDefendantRoute SalesmanIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2004

Claim of Bunnell v. Sangerfield Inn

Claimant, after sustaining work-related back injuries in February 1992 and receiving an $85,000 lump-sum settlement in 1998, sought to reopen his workers' compensation claim in May 2002. He cited worsened medical symptoms, an increased degree of disability, and requested to include a groin condition and consequential depression in his covered injuries. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied his application, ruling that the medical evidence failed to demonstrate an unanticipated change in his medical condition or degree of disability that was not contemplated at the time of the initial lump-sum adjustment. The Board's decision, which involved resolving conflicting medical evidence and concluded there was no unanticipated change, was subsequently affirmed on appeal, as it was found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLump-sum SettlementClaim ReopeningMedical ConditionDisability AssessmentBack InjuryDepressionDegenerative Disc DiseaseSubstantial EvidenceBoard Discretion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Rigby v. Brisky Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff appealed and defendants cross-appealed an order concerning a personal injury action arising from a workplace accident. Plaintiff sustained a groin strain while working on an elevated surface, guiding a truss lifted by a forklift, accidentally trapping his finger. The Supreme Court initially denied both plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court granted parts of the cross-motion, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) causes of action, concluding that plaintiff's injury did not result from a fall or the direct application of gravity, and a safety device would not have prevented it. The Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was sustained.

Personal InjuryLabor LawCommon-law NegligenceElevated WorkForklift AccidentSummary JudgmentCross-MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryGravity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Montgomery v. Hackenburg

Plaintiff William Montgomery, a locker room attendant, and his wife sued for injuries sustained when a co-employee, the general manager (defendant), struck Montgomery in the groin with a golf club shaft, leading to surgical removal of his left testicle. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that workers’ compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied this motion, citing factual disputes regarding whether defendant acted outside the scope of employment or engaged in an intentional tort. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that differing accounts of the incident created genuine questions of fact as to defendant's intent and whether his actions were grossly negligent or reckless, thus making summary judgment inappropriate. The court emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) exclusive remedy defense does not apply if an employee is acting outside the scope of employment or committed a willful or intentional tort.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionScope of EmploymentSummary Judgment MotionCo-employee LiabilityGolf Club IncidentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeGross Negligence
References
4
Showing 1-9 of 9 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