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. ADJ210551 (SAC 0311290) ADJ4100728 (SAC 0303862)
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

LUCKY OWYANG vs. INTERWOVEN, INC., AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MURUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration of a decision filed November 4, 2010, concerning the deceased worker Scott N. Owyang. The defendant, Interwoven, Inc. and its insurer, sought this reconsideration. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this matter should be directed to the WCAB in San Francisco, not a local office, pending the Decision After Reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISIONOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERSDEIDRA E. LOWENEIL P. SULLIVAN
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1992

People v. Lemma

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree. The appeal challenged the admission of a gas station attendant's testimony regarding the defendant's demand for money prior to the actual theft. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the testimony was properly admitted because it was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted. The defendant's remaining contentions were found to be either unpreserved or without merit.

Grand LarcenyCriminal AppealAdmissibility of EvidenceTestimonyComplete NarrativeInterwoven EventsAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
5
Case No. ADJ7186535, ADJ8480044
Regular
Feb 05, 2019

America Guandique vs. State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of permanent total disability for the applicant. The defendant argued that the administrative law judge erred in combining two separate injuries and in relying on medical opinions. However, the Board found substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant's injuries were inextricably intertwined and that her disabilities should be added, not combined. The Board affirmed that the finding of permanent total disability under Labor Code Section 4660 was well-supported, rendering other arguments moot.

Permanent Total DisabilityInextricably IntertwinedPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorCombined vs. Added ImpairmentsVocational ExpertPermanent Disability Rating Schedule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kallir v. Friendly Ice Cream

The claimant sought disability benefits for a period exceeding her standard maternity leave because her newborn suffered from an allergic condition requiring breast milk, preventing her return to work. The Workers’ Compensation Board granted additional benefits, interpreting the disability as a complication of pregnancy, despite the mother being physically able to work. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Law to meet the human needs of workers and acknowledging the inextricable connection between the child's condition and the pregnancy under these unique circumstances.

Pregnancy DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsComplication of PregnancyBreastfeeding DisabilityStatutory InterpretationLiberal ConstructionBoard Decision AffirmedChild's Health ImpactMaternity Leave ExtensionDisability Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ4192390 (SFO 0498367)
Regular
May 28, 2010

BRUCE MITCHELL vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to overturn an order that vacated submission, arguing it violated due process and wrongly linked the applicant's 132a discrimination claim to diminished future earning capacity. The WCAB found the vacated order was not final and that the 132a claim was indeed relevant and inextricably related to the earning capacity issue. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision to further develop the record, finding no substantial prejudice to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside DispositionLabor Code section 132adiminished future earnings capacityOgilvie v. City and County of San FranciscoMandatory Settlement Conferencestipulationdeferral
References
1
Case No. ADJ2534619 (MON 0255706)
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

RUBY YARYAN vs. YOUR STAFF, INC.; SENIOR PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE, In Liquidation; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by co-defendant County of Los Angeles. The petition sought review of a Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that two injuries were inextricably intertwined. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely filed. Despite a dispute over initial service, the petitioner admitted receiving the decision on November 2, 2010, making their petition due on November 22, 2010. Since the petition was filed on November 30, 2010, it was beyond the statutory deadline and the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeTimelinessService of ProcessLabor Code Section 5903JurisdictionEAMSDefective Service
References
4
Case No. ADJ10490434 (MF), ADJ10419398, ADJ10490429, ADJ10419507, ADJ8677936
Regular
Jun 23, 2025

Javier Hernandez vs. Richmar Farms, Zenith Insurance Co.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Zenith Insurance Co.'s petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a WCJ's decision to issue a single, joint and several award of 82% permanent partial disability to applicant Javier Hernandez, arguing that the hypertension-related disability should be apportioned to a single injury date. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the permanent disability due to hypertension was inextricably intertwined across the applicant's multiple industrial injuries and therefore could not be parceled out, aligning with established legal precedents regarding apportionment.

Permanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentJoint and Several AwardInextricably IntertwinedMultiple Industrial InjuriesHypertensionBenson DecisionQualified Medical EvaluatorPhysician's ReportCumulative Injury
References
15
Case No. ADJ1299341 (MON 0210486), ADJ1360926 (MON 0210487), ADJ2178726 (MON 0210488), ADJ3724105 (MON 0213769)
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

CARTIS SPILLMAN vs. MCDONNEL DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSN., FREMONT INDEMNITY CO

This case involves multiple industrial injuries sustained by the applicant from 1990 to 1993. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered the original award, amending it to remove findings of injury to certain body parts like the left knee and neck due to insufficient evidence. The WCAB affirmed the finding of 100% permanent disability, as the applicant's orthopedic and psychiatric conditions were deemed inextricably intertwined and not reasonably apportionable. The periods for temporary total disability indemnity were adjusted, and the Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant's average weekly wage.

CIGAFremont IndemnitySedgwick ClaimsReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OrderWCJPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
0
Case No. ADJ247666 (AHM 0049425) ADJ2739663 (AHM 0049426)
Regular
Jul 11, 2017

STEVE CHEGWIN vs. SBC/PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. Although the WCJ initially recommended dismissal as untimely, the WCAB found the petition timely because the amended award, correcting a date for permanent disability indemnity, constituted a material change extending the reconsideration period. Despite finding the petition timely, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning for denying reconsideration on the merits. The WCAB found that the amendment regarding the start date of permanent disability indemnity was a substantial change, and the issue was sufficiently interwoven with the overall award to extend the reconsideration deadline.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeJoint Findings and AwardAmended Joint Findings and AwardPermanent Disability IndemnityClerical ErrorMaterial ChangeJudicial FunctionInterwoven Award
References
3
Case No. ADJ158556 (MON 0206719) ADJ1611743 (MON 0222554) ADJ137665 (MON 0271624) ADJ1710332 (MON 0247216) ADJ716421 (MON 0222553)
Regular
Jun 27, 2011

Neil M. Lamont vs. BOEING, AIG/CHARTIS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves apportionment of permanent disability benefits for multiple industrial injuries sustained by the applicant, Neil M. Lamont. The defendant, Chartis, sought reconsideration of an award finding them liable for reimbursement from CIGA, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the arbitrator's report. The Board found that due to the "inextricably intertwined" nature of the applicant's disabilities, as testified by the agreed medical examiner, apportionment of causation was impossible. Therefore, a joint and several award was justified, making the solvent defendant (Chartis) solely liable, thus relieving CIGA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderArbitratorSubstantial EvidenceInextricably Intertwined DisabilityApportionment of LiabilityCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Insolvent Insurance CarrierCovered Claims
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 27 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