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. ADJ1083014 (POM 0275607) ADJ4477705 (POM 0275608)
Regular
May 29, 2009

LILIAN SOTO vs. PM GLOVES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a lien claimant seeking payment for an MRI. The Workers' Compensation Judge initially disallowed the lien for failing to meet Labor Code section 5703 requirements. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred by strictly applying section 5703. They determined that other evidence, including the treating physician's report referenced in a settlement, established the validity of the MRI expense. Therefore, the Board allowed the lien claim for the MRI.

Lien claimantReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5703Labor Code Section 4626Finding and OrderWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Compromise and Release (C&R)MRILumbar SpineSelf-procured medical treatment
References
Case No. SAC 0345394
Regular
Feb 22, 2008

DIANA RICHMOND vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, legally uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that applied the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The applicant argued that a pre-2005 MRI and subsequent medical opinions indicated permanent disability, thus triggering the older 1997 Schedule. The Board found that the MRI report alone was insufficient and that the AME's opinion on prior permanent disability was too late to qualify for the exception.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiana RichmondState of California Department of Justicelegally uninsuredSAC 0345394Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFebruary 222008industrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ8588048
Regular
Jul 18, 2018

KELLY LUHMANN vs. TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a worker's compensation applicant who sought reconsideration of a decision upholding the denial of an MRI for a knee injury. While the administrative law judge initially found the Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination untimely, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) clarified that the IMR was issued within the statutory timeframe after receiving supporting documentation. Crucially, the WCAB noted that even if the IMR were late, timeliness is not grounds for appeal, and a delay does not invalidate the IMR decision based on established case law. Therefore, the applicant is bound by the IMR's decision denying the MRI, and the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Independent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.6TimelinessSupporting DocumentationDirectory vs. Mandatory Time PeriodMedical NecessityMRIKnee InjuryPsyche Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3701295 (AHM 0146448)
Regular
Oct 07, 2013

PAULA GUEVARA vs. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKET, ZENITH ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Max MRI. While affirming the denial of Max MRI's lien claim for lack of evidence, the Board vacated the sanctions imposed. The Board found that Max MRI was denied due process regarding the sanctions, as the issue was not properly noticed or heard. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a decision on costs and sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantMax MRIFrivolous lienSanctionsDue processMedical Provider NetworkCompromise and ReleaseFindings and Order
References
Case No. ADJ8369887
Regular
Feb 23, 2015

JERYL SUTTLE vs. SHARP HEALTHCARE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jeryl Suttle's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which found that the applicant's contentions were not supported by the evidence. Specifically, the removal of a bone growth stimulator for an MRI was deemed necessary for treatment evaluation, not a medical-legal exam. The IMR decision upheld the denial of this treatment, and reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical Reviewbone growth stimulatorMRIspinal surgeonmedical-legal examtreating physicianadministrative law judge
References
Case No. SAL 0119321
Regular
Jun 16, 2008

DAVID MARTONE vs. CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, GREGORY BRAGG & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award, finding that the applicant's current low back injury should be apportioned at 20% to a prior industrial injury. This apportionment, based on medical opinion and MRI evidence showing injury to the same disc level, reduces the current permanent disability award to 8%. The decision emphasizes that apportionment is required under Labor Code section 4663, even when different rating schedules are involved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFire CaptainLow Back InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical ExaminerPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code Section 4663SB 899
References
Case No. ADJ10159316
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

Rowdy Rushing vs. Foster Farms

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that Rowdy Rushing did not sustain a left shoulder injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment with Foster Farms. The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant's testimony regarding a pallet striking his arm not credible, noting inconsistencies with coworker statements and medical reports. Specifically, the applicant's account of the incident and the mechanism of injury was deemed unlikely and not supported by Dr. Ozaeta's medical opinion, which concluded the MRI findings were inconsistent with the described incident. Therefore, the Board affirmed the judge's take-nothing order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFoster FarmsRowdy RushingFindings and OrderTake nothing orderIndustrial injuryLeft shoulderOctober 92015Taper/packer
References
Case No. ADJ7845980
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the applicant's pro per petition, staying the Stipulations and Award and returning the matter for further proceedings. The Board dismissed the former attorney's petition as moot and will allow applicant to argue the stipulation was entered into under duress and without full knowledge of his rights. The Board also noted ambiguities in the stipulation regarding the cervical MRI and the need to address temporary disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations and AwardMedical Provider Network (MPN)DuressTemporary Disability IndemnityExpedited HearingDeclaration of Readiness (DOR)Continuity of CareGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ2289246 (MON 0362113) ADJ4589003 (MON 0362111) ADJ826510 (MON 0362112)
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

ORLANDO ORTEGA vs. CALIFORNIA CLOSET COMPANY, NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the administrative law judge's exclusion of a fax delivery confirmation. This evidence pertained to a utilization review decision that denied a lumbar MRI and was excluded for not being listed on the pretrial conference statement and being served late. The Board found the evidence was not properly admissible as rebuttal under Labor Code section 5704 as the timeliness of the UR decision was a central, expected issue.

Petition for RemovalUtilization ReviewWCJ evidentiary rulingfax delivery confirmationpretrial conference statementmandatory settlement conferenceLabor Code section 5704rebuttal evidencelumbar MRIclaims examiner
References
Case No. ADJ9771839
Regular
Jan 27, 2020

MICHAEL KARLIS vs. CITY OF GLENDALE

This case involves a firefighter's workers' compensation claim for injuries including to his spine, skin, and cardiovascular system. The defendant appealed the initial award, arguing for a cardiac MRI, disputing the cause of GERD, and questioning the disability rating for the skin condition. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address these issues. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the award, reducing the permanent disability rating slightly to 87% due to a re-evaluation of the skin condition impairment rating.

GERDNSAIDLVHechocardiogramcardiac MRIactinic keratosisprecancerous lesionsdisfigurementAMA Guidespermanent disability rating
References
Showing 1-10 of 77 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