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. ADJ137248 (MON 0283474)
Regular
May 21, 2009

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENTS, INC., dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SIMPLEX GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, KURT REXIUS

This case involves an applicant's Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim against KAR Investments, Inc. (dba Rigoli Fire Extinguisher) and its successor, Simplex Grinnell. The WCAB rescinded a prior finding that barred the applicant from pursuing Simplex due to a statute of limitations issue. The Board ordered Kurt Rexius, the sole shareholder of KAR, joined as a necessary party defendant for full adjudication. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine if discrimination occurred and who is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKAR InvestmentsInc.Rigoli Fire ExtinguisherSimplex GrinnellKurt RexiusLabor Code section 132asuccessor-in-intereststatute of limitationreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ6786559
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

KURT KOSTKA vs. DOLAN TRUCKING INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted the applicant Kurt Kostka's Petition for Reconsideration of a December 28, 2012 decision. This action is taken due to statutory time constraints and a preliminary review indicating a need for further study of factual and legal issues. The WCAB will conduct further proceedings to ensure a just and reasoned decision after thorough review. All future filings related to this case must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting PetitionStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemSanta Rosa District Office
References
Case No. ADJ6786559, ADJ7167049
Regular
Dec 08, 2014

KURT KOSTKA vs. V. DOLAN TRUCKING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Kurt Kostka's appeal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision regarding industrial injuries. The Board amended the prior award to include a hernia injury and entitlement to future medical treatment for psychological injury. However, issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees were deferred for further proceedings at the trial level. The Board found the original judge's reliance on consultative ratings and rejection of vocational expert opinions to be erroneous. Jurisdiction was returned to the trial level due to the original judge's retirement and the need for further development of the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHerniaPsychePermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentVocational ExpertPQMEDEUConsultative Rating
References
Case No. ADJ137248
Regular
Aug 25, 2010

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENT, INC., dba RIGOLI, FIRE EXTINGUISHER; SIMPLEX, GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE, EXTINGUISHER; KURT REXIUS

The applicant, Gary Byrnes, sought reconsideration of a decision denying his claim for workers' compensation discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The administrative law judge found that while Byrnes sustained an industrial back injury, he failed to prove discrimination related to a denied $1,000 reimbursement. The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that Byrnes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his industrial injury. The Board found no evidence that the denial of the reimbursement was causally linked to the industrial injury or that other employees were treated differently.

Labor Code section 132aindustrial injurydiscriminationprima facie casedisparate treatment$1000 insurance reimbursementburden of proofbusiness realitiesreinstatement
References
Case No. ADJ10321614
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

KURT SAALFELD vs. CITY OF TRACY

The Appeals Board denied applicant's Petition for Removal seeking a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. Applicant objected to defendant's letter to the QME via email, but defendant had previously informed applicant they do not accept email service. The Board found applicant's email objection improperly served as there was no agreement for electronic service. Therefore, the Board concluded that applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Rule 10505service by emailobjection to QME letterpeace officer
References
Case No. ADJ9320374
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

KURT KENDELL vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROBATION DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a county probation officer's claim for psychiatric injury. The applicant alleged his injury stemmed from perceived bad faith personnel actions by his supervisor, including excessive report editing and workload issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award, finding the medical evidence regarding causation and the "good faith personnel action" defense was insufficient. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record, potentially through an Agreed Medical Examiner or a court-appointed physician, to clarify the causal relationship and the nature of the employer's actions.

Psychiatric injuryGood faith personnel action defenseLabor Code section 3208.3(h)Predominant causeSubstantial evidencePanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Rolda analysisActual events of employmentLawful nondiscriminatoryMedical probability
References
Case No. ADJ9999117
Regular
Jan 03, 2017

KURT FRANKLIN ZUNCICH (Deceased), BARBARA ALISON ZUNCICH (Widow) vs. JOHN SILVA, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration and denied a petition for removal. The WCAB found that the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision was not a "final" order because it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, the WCAB determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary to justify the extraordinary remedy of removal. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and dismissed the reconsideration and denied the removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ8578354
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

KURT SCHWARZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the original award of 30% permanent disability should have been apportioned. The Board found Dr. McCoy's apportionment opinion deficient for lacking sufficient detail and reasoning, thus not constituting substantial evidence. Consequently, the Board rescinded the findings related to permanent disability and apportionment, returning the matter for further development of the record. The Board also addressed the applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d) concerning permanent disability benefit adjustments, noting potential issues with notice and evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStationary EngineerIndustrial InjuryCervical SpinePermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorNonindustrial CausationLabor Code Section 4658(d)Medical Opinion
References
Showing 1-8 of 8 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