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. ADJ9027080, ADJ7299336, ADJ8027597
Regular
Jun 10, 2025

JAMES HUNTER vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Applicant James Hunter sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order that found him ineligible for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, affirming that Hunter's September 30, 2010 subsequent lumbar spine injury, settled at 10% permanent disability, did not meet the 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's reliance on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports over applicant's attempt to re-characterize the injury as a cumulative trauma.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJLabor Code section 5909EAMSApportionmentPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
14
Case No. ADJ3953602 (SRO 0133844) ADJ2646453 (SRO 0133845)
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ vs. MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an earlier decision awarding applicant 100% permanent disability, less credits and fees, due to industrial injuries to his right knee, psyche, and lumbar spine. The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration, arguing the applicant's disability was solely from the latter injury and thus not eligible for SIBTF benefits. The Board accepted the applicant's late-filed answer to the SIBTF's petition and, agreeing with the original judge, denied the SIBTF's petition for reconsideration. The Board also admitted two exhibits previously marked for identification into evidence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUNDRECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYINDUSTRIAL INJURYPSYCHELUMBAR SPINEMAINTENANCE WORKERADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
References
2
Case No. ADJ13002649, ADJ13002697
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

LORENZO TORRES vs. KOOS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award (F&A) issued on July 21, 2025. The F&A, authored by a Workers' Compensation Judge, found that applicant Lorenzo Torres sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lumbar spine and psyche (ADJ13002649), with the psychological injury not precluded by a good faith personnel action defense, resulting in temporary partial disability and 14% permanent disability to the lumbar spine. Additionally, applicant sustained AOE/COE injuries to his right and left shoulders (ADJ13002697), leading to 3% and 4% permanent disability respectively. Defendant challenged these findings, arguing insufficient evidence for the psyche injury, unjustified temporary partial disability, a lower lumbar spine impairment, and no industrial shoulder injury. The Appeals Board reviewed the matter, including the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, and found the WCJ's conclusions to be supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Board affirmed the original F&A and denied the reconsideration petition.

AOE/COEGood Faith Personnel Action DefensePsychological InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryShoulder InjuryTemporary Partial DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ3649169
Regular
Feb 14, 2013

BRUCE LIBERTY vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying his claim for lumbar spine injury. The applicant alleged a lumbar injury from a physical therapy incident following a compensable cervical and shoulder injury. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which relied on the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion. The AME found no industrial injury to the lumbar spine, citing a lack of contemporaneous evidence and a history of degenerative disc disease. The WCAB determined the applicant's presented "new" evidence was either previously reviewed or unpersuasive, upholding the original award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedBruce LibertyLos Angeles Unified School DistrictPermissibly Self-InsuredCase Number ADJ3649169Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeAgreed Medical ExaminerLumbar Spine Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ10679103
Regular
Dec 14, 2017

LARRY SYKES vs. THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior finding of industrial injury to the applicant's lumbar spine. The Board found that the existing medical reporting from Dr. Hong, Dr. Jamasbi, and the PQME Dr. Schofferman did not constitute substantial evidence to support this lumbar spine injury finding. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level to develop the record further on the lumbar spine injury issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineStagehandSecurity OfficerMedical Treatment RecordsSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ15370512
Regular
Mar 10, 2025

Antonio Luna Alvarez vs. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a December 10, 2024 Amended Findings and Award, arguing that applicant Antonio Luna Alvarez did not meet the SIBTF eligibility threshold. SIBTF contended that the applicant's subsequent lumbar injury did not affect the opposite and corresponding member of his preexisting coronary artery disability, his preexisting disabilities were not labor disabling, and Dr. Suresh Mahawar's medical reports lacked substantial evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the SIBTF's petition for reconsideration, deferring a final decision for further review of the merits and the entire record.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpermanent partial disabilityopposite and corresponding memberlabor disablingsubstantial medical evidencePetition for ReconsiderationActivities of Daily LivingADLscardiovascular disease
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2008

Dieujuste v. Kiss Management Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, issued an order on September 8, 2008, regarding a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a complaint for lack of serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing claims related to lumbar spine injury and a 90/180-day curtailment of the plaintiff's activities. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment concerning a right wrist injury, finding a triable issue of fact. Evidence from the plaintiff's treating physician and an expert indicated a significant and permanent right wrist injury, while evidence for lumbar spine injury was deemed minor. The court also found no issue of fact regarding a 90/180-day injury, noting the plaintiff missed no work and his leisure activities were not substantially curtailed.

Serious InjurySummary JudgmentRight Wrist InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryInsurance LawAppellate DivisionRange of MotionPermanent Injury90/180-Day InjuryMedical Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ611155 (SRO 0137927)
Regular
Sep 14, 2015

DANIEL OVERBY vs. DUCKWORTH CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: This case concerns a $100\%$ permanent disability award for an applicant who sustained a severe head injury in 2005, followed by a subsequent lumbar injury in 2006. The defendant sought apportionment of the permanent disability award, arguing the lumbar injury contributed to the applicant's unemployability. However, the Appeals Board found the medical evidence regarding apportionment between the two injuries insufficient and remanded the case for further development of the record. A dissenting opinion argued that the evidence supported a $100\%$ award without apportionment, as the primary disabilities were clearly linked to the initial head injury.

Industrial injuryPermanent disabilityApportionmentSubsequent injuryHead injuryBrain injuryNeurological deficitsSeizuresIncontinenceSexual dysfunction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03113 [217 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2023

Sywak v. Grande

Plaintiff William M. Sywak commenced an action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, naming Barbara Grande and Joseph D. Dwyer and Robert D. Dwyer (Dwyer defendants) as parties. Plaintiff alleged serious injuries under various categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and claimed economic loss beyond basic economic loss. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing some serious injury claims but preserving others, including those for lumbar spine injuries. On appeal by the Dwyer defendants, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court granted the Dwyer defendants' motion to dismiss claims related to plaintiff's cervical spine, left hip, left arm, left shoulder, and left leg injuries under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and also dismissed the claim for economic loss in excess of basic economic loss, noting plaintiff's prior unemployment due to a workers' compensation accident. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion regarding plaintiff's lumbar spine injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories, finding a triable issue of fact.

Motor Vehicle AccidentSerious InjuryInsurance LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCervical Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryPermanent Consequential Limitation of UseSignificant Limitation of Use90/180-Day Category
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 12,726 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