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. ADJ7390255
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

DARNELLA SCOTT STREET vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision allowing a lien claim for an H-Wave machine. The applicant found more relief with the H-Wave than a TENS unit. The Agreed Medical Examiner opined that while not convinced the H-Wave was superior to other inferential stimulation units, it was superior to a TENS unit. The WCAB found the lien claimant met its burden of proof regarding the medical necessity of the H-Wave.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictAthens AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgesubstantial evidenceElectronic Waveform LabsH-WaveTENS unitinferential stimulation unit
References
Case No. ADJ2509874 (VNO 0499093)
Regular
Nov 08, 2010

ARMINEH MARKARIAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to deny a lien claimant's claim for reimbursement of an H-Wave medical device. The defendant, Department of Motor Vehicles, had twice denied authorization for the device through utilization review, citing a lack of substantial medical literature supporting its efficacy compared to less expensive alternatives like TENS units. Despite the applicant withdrawing a dispute regarding the device and a stipulation resolving other issues, the Board found the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof by providing sufficient medical evidence of the H-Wave's necessity and efficacy. Therefore, the initial award of reimbursement to the lien claimant was reversed and denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyFindings Award and OrderReimbursementOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleDME H-WaveACOEM guidelinesUtilization Review (UR)Substantial Evidence
References
Case No. SAC 0319142
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

PRAKASHWAR KHELAWAN vs. BUDWAY TRUCKING & WAREHOUSING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, rescinding the original findings. The Board found that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proving the reasonableness of its charges for an H-wave unit, despite the treating physician's recommendation and lack of prior objection by the defendant. Therefore, the lien claimant is not entitled to any additional payment beyond what the defendant had already provided.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPrakashwar KhelawanBudway Trucking & WarehousingState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseH-wave unitElectronic Waveform Lablien claimantLabor Code section 4600
References
Case No. ADJ16902678
Regular
May 15, 2025

MARIA ORTEGA vs. MARIANI STONEBARGER, LLC; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Maria Ortega, the applicant, filed an application for adjudication, which was resolved by an Order Approving Compromise and Release. Lien claimant Electronic Waveform Lab, Inc. (EWL) sought payment for an H-Wave unit provided to the applicant, but its request was denied by Utilization Review and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that EWL was not entitled to payment because no appeal of the IMR determination was filed. Consequently, EWL's Petition for Reconsideration was denied due to the WCAB's lack of jurisdiction to review the IMR decision in the absence of a timely appeal.

Independent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimUtilization ReviewMedical NecessityH-Wave UnitLabor Code Section 4610.6Dubon IIAppeals Board JurisdictionFindings and Award
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. GRO 0021867 GRO 0021909
Regular
May 28, 2008

JUDY ALARCON vs. SANTA MARIA BONITA SCHOOL DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision denying a lien claim for an H-wave device and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The WCAB found that the defendant may not have properly conducted the utilization review process and failed to notify the applicant's attorney of the denial, estopping them from asserting time limits. The Board also noted a lack of substantial evidence regarding the medical necessity of the device and ordered further development of the record to determine if the H-wave is reasonable and necessary treatment.

Utilization ReviewH-wave Inferential StimulatorLien ClaimantMedical NecessityLabor Code Section 4062Labor Code Section 4610Administrative Director Rule 9792.9Substantial EvidenceDue ProcessEstoppel
References
Case No. ADJ7047387
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

CECILIA ALAS vs. G & G APPAREL aka B FRIEND, INC., ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY Administered By ESIS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a defendant in a workers' compensation matter. The petitioner subsequently withdrew their petition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is dismissing the petition due to its withdrawal. The Board also admonishes the e-filing petitioner for failing to notify the Reconsideration Unit via email of the withdrawal, which led to wasted Board resources.

ADJ7047387Petition for Reconsiderationwithdrawndismissede-filerControl UnitReconsideration UnitEAMS Reference GuideElectronic FilingDWC website
References
Case No. ADJ8490774
Regular
Jan 06, 2014

JAIME ROSPIGLIOSI vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied United Airlines' petition for removal. The defendant's request for a new Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) was denied because the original QME selection process was valid and timely. The WCAB found the petition lacked merit, bordered on frivolous, and admonished defense counsel for failing to include their State Bar number. The existing QME's reports will stand, and the case will proceed without further delay.

Petition for RemovalWCABUnited AirlinesGallagher Bassett ServicesPQMEPanel QMEDr. CremetaMedical Unit8 CCR 30(b)duplicative request
References
Case No. ADJ8235581
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

NICOLE TOLLIVER vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Electronic Waveform Lab, Inc. (EWL). The Board found that the defendant's utilization review (UR) of the treating physician's request for an H-Wave device was untimely and invalid because it was not communicated to the physician within the legally mandated 24-hour timeframe. Consequently, the prior decision disallowing EWL's lien was rescinded. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the medical treatment and the validity of the lien claim.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationH-Wave DeviceLien ClaimTimelinessCommunicationAdministrative RulesLabor CodeMedical TreatmentReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9343159, ADJ1368987 (MON0362038)
Regular
Sep 15, 2017

JAMES ISAAC vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed United Airlines' petition as procedurally improper. United Airlines filed a "Petition to Set Aside Order Approving Compromise and Release" instead of the correct "Petition for Reconsideration." The WCAB will return the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address United Airlines' original petition. This ruling does not substantively rule on the merits of setting aside the compromise and release.

Petition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDismissedGallagher Bassett ServicesUnited AirlinesADJ9343159ADJ1368987
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,008 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