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. ADJ834041
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

DAWN DEANS vs. PALMDALE WATER DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by ACWA/JPIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding 13% permanent disability for the applicant's right elbow and wrist injury. Defendant argued the award was not supported by substantial medical evidence. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) report deficient due to inadequate grip strength testing, misinterpretation of AMA Guides on grip strength differences, and failure to explain why grip loss was the primary rating factor. Consequently, the prior award was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further medical development and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPalmdale Water DistrictPermissibly Self-InsuredACWA/JPIAFindings and AwardPermanent Disability RatingSubstantial Medical EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesGrip Strength
References
11
Case No. ADJ9526635
Regular
Feb 21, 2017

SISSON STEWART vs. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original award, but remanded the case to defer the issue of permanent disability. This decision arose because the treating physician's permanent disability rating, based on grip strength loss, was deemed not substantial medical evidence under AMA Guides. The Appeals Board found that the doctor failed to adequately justify the use of grip strength over range of motion or other objective findings, and further development of the medical record is required. Consequently, the case returns to the trial level for further proceedings on permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityMedical EvidenceTreating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesGrip StrengthRange of MotionFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ7261203
Regular
Oct 11, 2012

ANGELINA KENDRICK McGEE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Legally Uninsured, Administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The defendant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, challenging the inclusion of a grip strength rating for the applicant's left hand. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the Agreed Medical Examiner did not adequately justify departing from the AMA Guides' limitations on rating grip strength. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability rating was reduced from 56% to 51% by excluding the grip strength impairment. The award for permanent disability indemnity and attorney fees was amended accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAngelina Kendrick McGeeState of California Department of JusticeState Compensation Insurance FundOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardOffice Assistant SupervisorPermanent DisabilityCervical SpineLeft Hand and Wrist
References
1
Case No. ADJ360205 (LBO 0384980)
Regular
Aug 05, 2010

Gurdev Malhotra vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES FAIRVIEW; Legally Uninsured, CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's advisory opinion concerning permanent disability rating for grip loss. Defendant argued the WCJ erred by allowing rating for grip loss when range of motion was present, and that the QME's reports did not support grip loss rating. The Board rescinded the WCJ's findings, remanding the case for further proceedings to ensure the WCJ follows the established process for issuing rating instructions based on substantial medical evidence, as clarified in *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. The ultimate determination of permanent disability requires a proper QME opinion and subsequent rating instructions from the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGurdev MalhotraState of California Department of Developmental ServicesLegally UninsuredContract ServicesPermanent Disability RatingGrip LossAMA GuidesQualified Medical EvaluatorQME
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. ADJ1793931 (OAK 0336568)
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

MICHAEL KESTEL vs. CAPITOL BUICK PONTIAC GMC, ZENITH, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

This case concerns an appeal regarding the applicant's permanent disability rating for upper extremity injury. The defendants contended that the original $24\%$ rating was improperly calculated, specifically challenging the inclusion of grip loss as a factor. The Appeals Board found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion on grip loss to be speculative and not substantial evidence under the *Almaraz II* decision. Consequently, the Board granted reconsideration, amended the award to $16\%$ permanent disability, and affirmed the remainder of the original findings.

AMEAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA Guidespermanent disability ratingWPIwhole person impairmentgrip lossupper extremity impairmentAlmaraz IIsubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ1728771 (LBO 0316743) ADJ1516565 (LBO 0860347)
Regular
Sep 27, 2012

Kay Rodriguez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, Administered By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the Applicant's claim. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report, which found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) failed to adequately explain why an alternative impairment rating method (grip loss) was more accurate than the standard method (carpal tunnel syndrome) according to the AMA Guides. This lack of reasoning rendered the AME's opinion unsubstantial evidence for determining the Applicant's impairment. Therefore, the Board upheld the initial finding based on carpal tunnel syndrome, not grip loss.

Kay RodriguezLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundOrder Denying ReconsiderationAlmaraz-Guzman casesAMA GuidesWhole Person Impairment (WPI)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)substantial evidenceActivities of Daily Living (ADLs)
References
15
Case No. ADJ2453188 (LBO 0391424)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

WILLIAM GILBERT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding the medical evidence insufficient. The applicant sought a higher permanent disability rating than the $12\%$ awarded, arguing the judge erred in calculating impairment and omitting pain and grip strength adjustments recommended by the Agreed Medical Evaluator. The Board returned the case to the trial level for further development of the medical record, requiring the evaluator to fully explain their findings on impairment, pain, and grip strength, and to consider *Almaraz* principles regarding equitable permanent disability awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryPermanent DisabilityLeft Median Sensory NeuropathyLeft Ulnar Motor NeuropathyAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistAMA GuidesImpairment RatingGrip Strength
References
9
Case No. ADJ10187704, ADJ10924724
Regular
May 17, 2018

STEVEN CASE vs. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to increase applicant's permanent disability rating for bilateral shoulder injury from 9% to 38%. The Board found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) alternative rating, based on strength loss, was substantial medical evidence and properly considered within the AMA Guides. The WCJ erred in applying an overly restrictive interpretation of "complex or extraordinary" cases for deviating from strict AMA Guides ratings. The AME's use of strength loss data from the AMA Guides, even for an age outside the specified range, was permissible under the *Almaraz-Guzman* line of cases when justified by clinical judgment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)permanent disability ratingbilateral shouldersorthopedic AMEAMA GuidesAlmaraz-Guzmanstrength loss index
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,159 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