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

Lomascolo v. OTTO OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC. INC.

This case involves a defendant's motion for a protective order to preclude the plaintiff from using two documents at trial, alleging they were not disclosed previously. The plaintiff, who alleges sexual harassment and a hostile work environment under Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law, argued that the documents were solely for impeachment purposes and thus excluded from mandatory disclosure. The court analyzed whether the documents had a dual purpose (impeachment and substantive evidence) and reviewed circuit precedents, ultimately declining to completely preclude their use. Instead, the court applied judicial estoppel, ruling that the documents, which the plaintiff claimed were for impeachment to avoid sanctions, could only be used for impeachment purposes at trial.

Discovery DisputeProtective Order MotionEvidence PreclusionImpeachment UseSubstantive EvidenceRule 26(a) DisclosureRule 37(c)(1) SanctionsJudicial EstoppelSexual Harassment ClaimHostile Work Environment
References
10
Case No. No. 38
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2019

The People v. John Giuca

John Giuca was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and second-degree criminal weapon possession. His appeal, based on a CPL 440.10 motion, alleged Brady violations and prosecutorial misconduct concerning a jailhouse informant (JA). Giuca claimed the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material related to JA's pending burglary case, drug treatment violations, and the prosecutor's involvement in JA's court appearances. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's denial of Giuca's motion. The Court found no reasonable possibility that the undisclosed evidence would have altered the verdict, citing extensive impeachment material already available and strong evidence of guilt.

Murder convictionBrady violationImpeachment evidenceJailhouse informantProsecutorial misconductDue processCriminal procedureCPL 440.10 motionMaterialityTacit agreement
References
33
Case No. ADJ8376821
Regular
Jul 21, 2014

BRIGHT ONYENWE vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Bright Onyenwe sustained his injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony about a student's assault. The defendant failed to impeach the applicant's testimony or demonstrate that the WCJ's findings were unsupported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCABAOE/COECredibilityImpeachmentPanel QMESelf-defenseJROTC InstructorLos Angeles Unified School DistrictAdverse Inference
References
1
Case No. ADJ9094120
Regular
Nov 09, 2020

JAIME MORALES vs. SENIOR OPERATIONS, LLC, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury to his shoulders. The defendant argued the administrative law judge erred in this finding, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition. The WCAB found that medical evidence supported the applicant's injury being consistent with his work duties. The defendant failed to present evidence to impeach the applicant's description of his work.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial injuryshoulderscumulative periodcertified metal fitterspinepsycheLabor Code section 5412date of injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ7785257
Regular
Mar 30, 2015

JOHN HUTTMAN vs. SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an adverse ruling for John Huttman, applicant, against Solano County Probation. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found Huttman to be an incredible witness. Key evidence included the applicant's prior medical history, the impeachment of his witness, and proof that the alleged injury report to a supervisor was impossible. Therefore, the Board upheld the denial of the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.industrial causationadverse rulingdisputed claimwitness credibilityimpeached witnessjuvenile wards
References
3
Case No. ADJ9580355
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

MARIO PENATE vs. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the issue of permanent disability, affirming other aspects of the original award. Defendant contended the initial award improperly relied on the applicant's physician over a QME and on the applicant's impeached testimony, and used the incorrect occupational group number. The Board found the original rating instructions were incomplete regarding the lumbar spine and required clarification and re-rating. They also corrected the occupational group number to 350, as stipulated by the parties.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesDRE MethodOccupational Group NumberSubstantial EvidenceCredibilityAlmaraz-GuzmanQualified Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. ADJ7998608
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

BEATRIZ MORENO vs. RTJ HOME SWEET HOME, INC., a California Corporation, ROSALINDA GALO, TORINO JAVIER, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal seeking disqualification of the judge, clarifying that prior trial testimony can be used for impeachment in a new trial. The Board also rescinded the WCJ's order prohibiting such references. Defense counsel Mike Pincher was sanctioned $800 for abusive language towards the WCJ, as his conduct in pleadings and objections was deemed disrespectful and unprofessional. The Board found Pincher's objections lacked merit and compounded his misconduct by making further disrespectful accusations against the WCJ.

RemovalSanctionsAbusive LanguagePre-Trial Conference StatementImpeachment PurposesWCJPetition for RemovalReconsiderationDisqualificationLabor Code section 5813
References
4
Case No. ADJ8223604
Regular
Nov 14, 2013

DEEANNA FOBBS vs. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dee Anna Fobbs' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report and recommendations, finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury to her right knee arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and concluded that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported the WCJ's decision. Applicant's claims of impeachment errors, improper denial of testimony, and adverse inference for destroyed evidence were rejected.

DEEANNA FOBBSUC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTERSEDGWICK CMSPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDWCJ REPORTGARZA V. WORKMEN'S COMP. APPEALS BD.WITNESS STATEMENTSIMPEACHMENTADMISSIBILITY
References
1
Case No. ADJ6974901
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

JOHN SWENNING, JR. vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the defendant sought discovery of documents related to potential misconduct and impeachment evidence. The applicant had a separate settlement agreement with the Fresno County District Attorney's Office, which included a confidentiality clause and required the expurgation of his personnel file. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's discovery motion, subject to the condition that any personnel file produced must be the expurgated version provided under the settlement agreement. This ruling allows for the requested discovery while respecting the terms of the prior settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSettlement AgreementMutual ReleaseConfidentiality ClauseIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineKneesDistrict Attorney's InvestigatorPetition for Discovery
References
1
Case No. 9420257 [MF]; 8802141 [2] 8802135 [3]
Regular
Nov 02, 2019

RICHARD GLASSMAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant permanently and totally disabled. The defendant contended the Administrative Law Judge erred by relying on the applicant's vocational expert, psychiatric AME, and inadmissible reports, and making a determination contrary to *Fitzpatrick*. The Board found the ALJ's reliance on the vocational expert and AME was supported by evidence, and the applicant's credibility was not impeached. While an inadmissible report was considered for jaw injury, it was deemed inconsequential to the permanent disability rating. The Board found the decision was consistent with the facts and medical opinions presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanently Totally DisabledVocational ExpertAgreed Medical ExaminerPsychiatric AMETreating PhysicianLabor Code § 5903Admitted InjuryCombined Values
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 34 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