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. ADJ1814984 (SBR 0250192)
Regular
Mar 25, 2011

Mary Leaming vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

This case involves applicant Mary Leaming's claim for new and further disability and medical treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) stemming from a 1995 industrial injury. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's Amended Findings and Award because it found that while the applicant demonstrated some new and further disability, the evidence was insufficient to fully support a determination. Furthermore, the Board concluded that applicant is entitled to ongoing medical treatment for her deep vein thrombosis as a compensable consequence of her original industrial injury, and the case is remanded for further proceedings and development of the record regarding permanent disability and apportionment.

Agreed Medical ExaminerApplicantDefendantDeep Vein ThrombosisDisabilityIndustrial InjuryNew and Further DisabilityPermanent DisabilityPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Treatment
References
8
Case No. ADJ9883212
Regular
May 19, 2018

LADONNA PALEGA vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a California Highway Patrol officer diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. The defendant, California Highway Patrol, sought reconsideration of a finding that this condition constituted an industrial injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant argued that the applicant's condition was not considered "cancer" and therefore the statutory presumption of industrial causation did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding based on qualified medical evaluator Dr. Ngo's opinion that adenocarcinoma in situ qualifies as cancer under the statute. The Board found the defendant failed to rebut the presumption by providing evidence that the exposure to carcinogens was not linked to the disabling cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of injurycervical canceradenocarcinoma in situLoop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP)substantial medical evidencepanel qualified medical evaluatordisputable presumptionrebuttal evidencecarcinogen exposure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dipippo v. Accurate Signs & Awnings

The claimant, a sign hanger, was injured in a work-related accident, sustaining injuries to multiple body parts. Subsequently, he developed a deep venous thrombosis, which he sought to add as a consequential injury to his claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board both denied his application, finding no causal relationship between the thrombosis and his work-related injuries. Claimant's subsequent application for full Board review was also denied. The appeal court's review was limited to determining if the Board's denial of full Board review was arbitrary and capricious, concluding that the claimant did not present new evidence or a material change in condition. Therefore, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppealDeep Venous ThrombosisCausal RelationMedical InjuryBoard ReviewDenialAffirmedWork-related AccidentInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. ADJ1700843 (LAO 0888764)
Regular
Sep 07, 2012

YANFEN SITU vs. SWEDA COMPANY, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and lacking merit. The petition failed to meet statutory filing deadlines and did not properly serve defense counsel. Due to these procedural deficiencies and the petition's lack of legal basis, the WCAB is considering imposing sanctions of $250.00 on the lien claimant and its representative.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for reconsiderationDismissing petitionLabor Code section 5310Notice of intentionSanctionsSJT & AssociatesLilibeth GomezHearing representative
References
2
Case No. ADJ1700843
Regular
Oct 08, 2012

YANFEN SITU vs. SWEDA COMPANY, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) imposed a $250 sanction against hearing representative Lilibeth Gomez and lien claimant SJT & Associates. This sanction arose from their filing of an untimely and meritless Petition for Reconsideration that was also not properly served on the defendant's counsel. The WCAB previously issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions, and no objection was filed within the allotted timeframe. Therefore, the sanction is now officially assessed, payable jointly and severally.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingService ViolationLabor Code section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Notice of Intention to Impose SanctionsGood Cause
References
0
Case No. ADJ3209553 (VNO 0530530) ADJ790950 (VNO 0530529)
Regular
Oct 28, 2009

PATRICIA SHORTER vs. THE HELP GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding no medical evidence to support applicant's claims of injury to the psyche, chest, deep vein thrombosis, or right arm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDENYING RECONSIDERATIONADMITTED INJURYPSYCHE CLAIMLOWER EXTREMITIESDEEP VEIN THROMBOSISINDUSTRIAL CAUSATIONTREATING CHIROPRACTORQUALIFIED MEDICAL EVALUATORPQME
References
0
Case No. ADJ7511305
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

BENNETT IORNS vs. R & L BROSAMER, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision regarding a reopened claim for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The Board found the original record inadequate and the Arbitrator's decision lacked proper explanation and proper procedure. The matter was returned for further development of the medical record, including a new Independent Medical Evaluator evaluation, and for a new decision after proper submission. This ensures due process and a clear evidentiary basis for future rulings.

Petition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityDeep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)Waiver of IssueDue ProcessIndependent Medical Evaluator (IME)Summary of EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceHamilton v. LockheedAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
References
4
Case No. ADJ2527863 (SRO 0119111) ADJ465592 (SRO 0131576)
Regular
Nov 23, 2010

LANI BROCKMAN vs. UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded an award of additional temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant this award more than five years after the applicant's industrial injury, as per Labor Code section 5410. This was because a prior award of temporary disability had been terminated, and the applicant did not petition to reopen within the statutory five-year period. The case was returned to the trial level to address remaining issues, including the causation of the applicant's deep vein thrombosis.

WCABLani BrockmanUkiah Valley Medical CenterAdventist HealthADJ2527863ADJ465592Temporary Disability IndemnityDeep Vein ThrombosisCausationStatute of Limitations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Machajewski v. Town of Cambria

Gerald A. Machajewski, a volunteer firefighter for the Town of Cambria, died of an acute coronary artery thrombosis after responding to a chaotic automobile accident. His widow filed for workers' compensation death benefits, which the Workers’ Compensation Board established using presumptions from Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law §§ 44 and 61. The Town and its carrier appealed, arguing the death was unrelated to his duties. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the evidence supported unusual strain and effort, and the Town failed to rebut the claimant's entitlement to benefits.

Volunteer firefighterWorkers' compensation death benefitsCoronary artery thrombosisUnusual strain and effortCausationPresumptionsAppellate reviewCardiac eventExertionRebuttal evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1991

Mink v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

A track worker for a defendant railroad sustained a deep vein thrombosis after a work-related slip and fall, leading to permanent disability. The Supreme Court initially awarded the plaintiff $3 million for future pain and suffering. However, the appellate court found this award excessive, noting that speculative expert testimony lacking medical certainty and outside the scope of the bill of particulars likely influenced the jury. The judgment was modified, remanding the case for a new trial on future pain and suffering damages, with the condition that the plaintiff could accept a reduced award of $1 million to affirm the amended judgment.

Personal InjuryFuture Pain and SufferingExcessive DamagesMedical Expert TestimonySpeculative EvidenceBill of ParticularsRemand for New TrialConditional AffirmationDeep Vein ThrombosisRailroad Worker Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 25 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