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. ADJ1069838 (OAK 0342751) ADJ780338 (OAK O342750)
Regular
Nov 06, 2017

WANDA AUGUSTINE (Deceased) vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a previous award and held that the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) is not liable for Jeff Malmuth's lien for vocational rehabilitation costs. The Board found that SIBTF was not a party when the costs were incurred and that the lien's recoverability against Federal Express requires further development of the record regarding the dates of injury and body parts involved in the underlying claims. The case is returned to the trial level for new proceedings and a decision on the lien's validity.

SIBTFJeff Malmuthlienvocational rehabilitation expertcostsLabor Code section 5811Barr v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Costa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.permanent disability ratingAcme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman)
References
Case No. ADJ8811286
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

Roy Lehman vs. Walgreens, Zurich American Insurance Company

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed the finding that Roy Lehman is permanently and totally disabled due to an industrial injury to his low back and psyche. Defendant Walgreens appealed, arguing the finding of permanent total disability was improper due to a lack of apportionment and reliance on incorrect rating schedules. The Board found substantial medical and vocational evidence supported the total disability finding, including expert opinions that Lehman was unemployable and not amenable to rehabilitation even after considering apportionment. The Board also found the vocational expert's reports met the substantial evidence standard despite defense challenges.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWalgreensZurich American Insurance CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesRoy LehmanOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orderpermanent total disabilityapportionmentLabor Code Section 4663
References
Case No. ADJ377932 (SRO 140247)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

BARBARA PENNY vs. COMMUNITY ACTON PARTNERSHIP OF SONOMA COUNTY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award concerning applicant Barbara Penny's industrial injury. The WCAB rescinded the award and returned the matter for further proceedings. This decision was primarily based on the need to properly develop the record regarding the applicant's diminished future earning capacity (DFEC), specifically concerning the methodology for calculating lost earnings. The WCAB also noted that the applicant's claim for further medical treatment for body parts beyond the low back could be raised again at the trial level.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardBarbara PennyCommunity Action Partnership of Sonoma CountyState Compensation Insurance FundADJ377932Opinion and Order Granting Petitions for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryCase Manager
References
Case No. ADJ237780
Regular
Mar 19, 2009

AURELIO MERCADO vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over a permanent disability rating for an injured worker, Aurelio Mercado. The WCJ initially found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion admissible, leading to a finding of total disability, and rejected the employer's apportionment argument. However, the Appeals Board rescinded this decision, citing recent en banc rulings in *Almaraz* and *Ogilvie* which clarified the standards for rebutting permanent disability ratings. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with these updated legal precedents regarding diminished future earning capacity and apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAurelio MercadoTarget StoresSedgwick Claims Management ServicesAdmissibilityVocational ExpertJeff MalmuthDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECPermanent Total Disability
References
Case No. ADJ7744441
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

PAULIN SANDOVAL vs. RANSOME COMPANY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to an incomplete record preventing a meaningful review of the applicant's contentions regarding apportionment and permanent disability. The WCJ's decision is rescinded and the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to create a proper record. Issues surrounding medical opinions on employability and apportionment need to be revisited by the WCJ. The Board expressed no final opinion on the merits of the applicant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPaulin SandovalRansome CompanyTravelers Casualty & Surety CompanyReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackPsycheApportionment
References
Case No. ADJ7927883
Regular
May 22, 2015

JEFF JANZEN vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA, COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

This case involves a fire captain's cumulative trauma claim for injuries to multiple body parts, including sinuses, lungs, and back. The employer, City of Costa Mesa, argued the claim was time-barred under Labor Code §5412. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board upheld the administrative law judge's decision, finding the applicant lacked knowledge of the cumulative nature of his injury until consulting an attorney. Therefore, the Board determined the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as his disability was not known to be industrially caused until shortly before filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJEFF JANZENCITY OF COSTA MESAPermissibly Self-InsuredFindings Award and Orderindustrial injurysinuseslungsskinneck
References
Case No. ADJ10204439
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

JEFF SMITH vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Riverside's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Deputy Sheriff Jeff Smith's injury, sustained en route to mandatory employer-ordered training, fell under the "special mission" exception to the "going and coming rule." The training's deviation in location, time, and nature from Smith's regular duties satisfied the three-part test for a special mission. Therefore, Smith's injury was deemed to have arisen out of and occurred in the course of employment.

going and coming rulespecial mission exceptionspecial errand exceptionDeputy Sherifftraffic investigation classBen Clark Training Centermotor vehicle accidentcourse of employmentroutine dutiesemployer's benefit
References
Case No. ADJ7947584
Regular
May 09, 2014

JEFF CLARK vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

The applicant, Jeff Clark, filed a workers' compensation claim against the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The defendant sought removal, arguing the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in setting a trial date for the issue of injury. However, electronic records showed that a trial with testimony was completed on the disputed date of April 1, 2014. Consequently, the Petition for Removal was deemed moot and dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

Petition for RemovalEAMStrial with testimonyhearing completedmootdismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJapplicantdefendant
References
Case No. ADJ7180052
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

JEFF ALLMAN vs. HELEN TOWERS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, YORK VALENCIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jeff Allman's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The original Findings and Award were issued on September 17, 2013, but the petition was not filed within the statutory 25-day deadline. Even if timely, the Board noted the petition was skeletal, failing to address the merits of the original decision. Furthermore, the Board found no record of Allman updating his address per regulations, and proof of service on his official address was valid.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingOfficial Address RecordProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptDWC Rule 10205.5(c)Skeletal PetitionFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5903
References
Case No. ADJ339175 (SRO 0132580)\nADJ625556 (STK 0203890)\nADJ614688 (STK 0210392)
Regular
Mar 03, 2012

JEFF BUSCH vs. NAPA PRINTING & GAPHICS, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns multiple claims filed by Jeff Busch against Napa Printing & Graphics and its insurer. A petition for reconsideration of a January 3, 2012 decision was filed. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew this petition. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnApplicantDefendantsNapa Printing & GraphicsPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyADJ339175ADJ625556
References
Showing 1-10 of 23 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