Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
Reconsideration granted to address errors in permanent disability rating and apportionment. Matter returned for new rating considering walker use and clarifying apportionment.
This case concerns defendant Modesto Irrigation District's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge erred in using an incorrect impairment number for calculating permanent disability. The Board amended the award to reflect an 18% permanent disability rating, based on the agreed medical evaluator's opinion regarding lateral epicondylitis and decreased grip, not nerve entrapment. The Board also corrected the finding for future medical treatment to the right arm and elbow, aligning with the amended disability rating.
This case involves a firefighter seeking reconsideration of a denial of temporary disability benefits. The applicant underwent knee surgery on February 10, 2009, and testified about his recovery and need for light duty. Despite no explicit medical opinion stating temporary disability, the Appeals Board found a reasonable inference of temporary disability from February 10, 2009, to March 6, 2009, based on the surgery's nature and the applicant's reliance on his wife for assistance. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter for further proceedings, including determination of temporary disability and potential Labor Code Section 4850 benefits.
This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the finding that the applicant sustained industrial injuries and is entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) indemnity from August 1, 2006, to January 27, 2008. The Board found sufficient evidence, including the treating physician's reports and applicant's testimony, to support the need for surgery and the resulting TTD period, despite the Agreed Medical Evaluator's later confirmation of the surgical necessity.
This case involves a worker's compensation applicant who claimed her left knee injury occurred when she fainted at work on February 8, 2017. Medical reports from her treating physicians documented acute left knee pain, a torn lateral meniscus, degenerative changes, and temporary total disability following the incident. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the applicant's testimony credible, supported by medical evidence, and determined the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. Therefore, the employer's petition for reconsideration was denied.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the applicant failed to establish a plainly erroneous fact in an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The Board found the IMR decision was based on a plainly erroneous mistake of fact because it evaluated a request for dorsal medial branch block injections as though it were a request for facet injections, which are different procedures. Consequently, the medical treatment dispute is remanded to the Administrative Director for review by a different independent review organization or reviewer.
Defendants sought dismissal from a workers' compensation case after the applicant's employer's insurer accepted coverage. The WCJ initially denied this dismissal but later dismissed one defendant without prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the defendants' Petition for Removal, finding it moot due to the subsequent order. However, the Board, on its own motion, granted removal to amend the later order and dismiss the remaining defendant without prejudice, correcting a perceived clerical error.
This case concerns whether the applicant is entitled to a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) for a later reported injury. The defendant argued that under *Navarro v. City of Montebello*, the same QME should evaluate all injuries reported prior to an initial evaluation. However, the Board found *Navarro* distinguishable because the applicant's fifth injury was reported *after* the initial QME evaluation, despite occurring earlier. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to a new PQME for the later reported injury, and the defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied.
The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition challenging the WCJ's jurisdiction to award temporary disability benefits, finding that jurisdiction was not lost as the issue was deferred and the case remained open. The Board granted the applicant's petition, amending the award to defer the issue of temporary disability for a later period (January 19, 2005, through March 29, 2006) because a stipulated permanent and stationary date does not preclude a subsequent period of temporary disability. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine eligibility for this later period of temporary disability.
Defendant Kroger Company sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision awarding applicant Angel Flores benefits for bilateral knee and right shoulder injuries sustained as a maintenance worker from 1995 to 2015. The defendant argued the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) opinion was not substantial evidence. The Board denied the petition, finding the QME's later reports, after clarifying applicant's 20-year work history and job duties, provided substantial evidence of cumulative trauma injury. The QME's initial opinion was based on a misunderstanding of applicant's symptom onset, which he later corrected after further evaluation.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.