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. ADJ14789657
Regular
Oct 24, 2025

EDWAR VANEGAS GERENA vs. COMMERCIAL TREE CARE, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant, Edwar Vanegas Gerena, a tree trimmer, sustained a severe injury to his left hand, neck, right shoulder, right arm, right upper extremity, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration of the July 16, 2025 Findings and Award. The WCAB affirmed the finding of permanent total disability, agreeing that the medical opinions from QMEs Dr. Rakkar and Dr. Alvarellos constituted substantial medical evidence and that the orthopedic and psychiatric impairments should be added due to a lack of overlap in their impact on daily living activities. The decision also addressed the applicability of Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timeliness of the Appeals Board's action on the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent total disabilityQualified Medical ExaminerQMEDr. RakkarCRPSComplex Regional Pain SyndromeMajor Depressive Disorder
References
Case No. ADJ13119496
Regular
Sep 29, 2025

Ariel Prudente vs. RJP Framing, Inc., Alaska National Insurance Company

Applicant Ariel Prudente sought removal of a WCJ's order to replace psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) Dr. Peter Turek. The WCJ's decision stemmed from applicant's attorney providing "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" to Dr. Turek, which was deemed a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b). The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order lacked sufficient rationale and evidence of prejudice to justify Dr. Turek's replacement. Consequently, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's June 18, 2025 Findings and Order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for less drastic measures than QME replacement.

PQMEPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Kite decisionsVigil v. County of KernSuon v. California DairiesMaxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitationex parte communicationsubstantial justiceAOE/COE
References
Case No. ADJ8240882; ADJ8240881; ADJ8615401
Regular
Apr 21, 2025

ROBERT S. HAPPENY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN

Applicant Robert S. Happeny sustained industrial injuries during his employment as a correctional officer, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability by the WCJ due to his inability for vocational retraining. The WCJ also issued an unapportioned award, concluding that apportionment to nonindustrial factors was not proven. Defendant challenged this decision via a petition for reconsideration, disputing the method of combining disabilities and the reliability of vocational reports. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's determination of permanent and total disability based on vocational infeasibility and the lack of established apportionment, ultimately rescinding the original decision and substituting new findings of fact.

ADJ8240882ADJ8240881ADJ8615401correctional officerindustrial injuryheartpsycheright wristrespiratory systemlumbar spine
References
Case No. ADJ9823240
Regular
Aug 18, 2025

CARMEN MILLER vs. DIAMOND STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Carmen Miller vs. Diamond Staffing Services, Inc. and California Insurance Guarantee Association. The petition challenged the WCJ's findings regarding the applicant's average weekly wage and the reliance on Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. William Campbell's reports concerning permanent disability and the addition of impairment values. The Board upheld the WCJ's decision, confirming the timely action on the petition and agreeing with the WCJ's application of Labor Code section 4453(c) for wage calculation and the substantial medical evidence provided by Dr. Campbell for disability assessment.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Petition denial60-day periodTransmission of caseEAMSNotice of transmissionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. William Campbell
References
Case No. ADJ12075922
Regular
Sep 12, 2025

DANIEL STRAMBI vs. CITY OF FOSTER CITY, THE CITIES GROUP

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings of Fact and Award which found applicant sustained injury to multiple body parts resulting in 69% permanent disability and that defendant unreasonably delayed payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity, leading to penalties. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ's determination that the AME's findings on permanent disability, including the interpretation of AMA Guides for varus deformity and the adding of knee disabilities, constituted substantial evidence. The Board also upheld the imposition of penalties for the defendant's unreasonable delays in paying both temporary and permanent disability benefits.

StrambiCity of Foster CityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardpermanent disabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Peter MandellLabor Code section 5814penaltiesunreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ13011053
Regular
Sep 08, 2025

NORBERTO GARCIA vs. DOMINATION COLLABORATION, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Norberto Garcia, a cook, sustained multiple industrial injuries including to his psyche, spine, shoulders, left ankle, lower extremities/gait, kidneys, and in the form of hypertension, anemia, diabetes, and left foot amputation. The WCJ awarded 100% permanent disability, finding that the impairments should be added due to their synergistic effects. Defendants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing errors in combining impairments and apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's findings that Dr. Lonky's medical opinions supported the additive approach for disability calculation and that even with minor adjustments, the applicant's permanent disability still exceeded 100%.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHypertensive Cardiovascular DiseaseRenal DiseaseDiabetes MellitusLeft Foot AmputationGait DerangementVocational Evaluation
References
Case No. ADJ6866226
Regular
Sep 08, 2014

Patrick Vigil vs. Clars Estate Auction Gallery, First Comp Insurance

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, rescinding the WCJ's finding of no industrial injury. While the parties had stipulated to injury AOE/COE and settled the claim, the WCJ erroneously found otherwise. However, the Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to establish a violation of Labor Code section 132a. Ultimately, the applicant takes nothing on his section 132a claim, but the industrial injury finding is reinstated based on the prior stipulation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6866226Patrick VigilCLARS Estate Auction GalleryFIRST COMP INSURANCEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderInjury AOE/COELabor Code Section 132aViolation of 132a
References
Case No. ADJ12790054
Regular
Aug 11, 2025

THANH DINH vs. HODO INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant and Defendant both filed Petitions for Reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) issued on May 30, 2025. Applicant contended issues with permanent disability apportionment and inability to compete in the open labor market, seeking 100% disability. Defendant asserted incorrect occupational code and method for combining impairments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petitions, the WCJ's reports, and the record, noting inconsistencies and a need for further review regarding permanent disability, apportionment under Escobedo v. Marshalls, vocational reporting, and the application of Vigil v. County of Kern regarding impairment combination. Therefore, the Appeals Board granted both petitions and deferred the final decision after reconsideration to allow for a comprehensive review of the factual and legal issues.

Permanent disabilityApportionmentVocational rehabilitationMedical-legal reportsOccupational codeDRE Category IVWhole person impairmentAddition vs. Combination of impairmentsLabor Code section 5909Petition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8800095
Regular
Oct 28, 2016

MARIE HINGADA vs. AXIS SPECIALTY U.S. SERVICES, INC., VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Marie Hingada's petition for reconsideration in Case No. ADJ8800095. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The decision emphasized giving great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations due to their observation of witnesses. No substantial evidence warranted rejecting the WCJ's credibility findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsideration DeniedWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.substantial evidenceADJ8800095Van Nuys District Officeadministrative law judgeapplicantdefendants
References
Case No. ADJ6719136
Regular
Apr 01, 2011

RICHARD KITE vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

This case concerns Richard Kite's claim for workers' compensation for a hip injury sustained while employed by East Bay Municipal Utility District. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered an order mandating the employer restore applicant's sick and vacation leave at a higher rate tied to his later earnings. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to justify using the increased earnings for calculating leave restoration, as per *Grossmont Hospital v. WCAB*. Therefore, the WCAB amended the order to restore leave at the rate of $668.93 per week, based on the applicant's earnings at the time of the initial injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityTD RateSick LeaveVacation LeaveEmployment Development DepartmentEDDWCJFindings of FactLabor Code
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