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. ADJ9694948
Regular
Feb 01, 2016

ESTHER SANDOVAL vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied San Diego Unified School District's petition for reconsideration of an award finding applicant entitled to right shoulder surgery. The defendant argued that the medical opinions supporting the surgery were not substantial evidence because they didn't cite MTUS/ACOEM guidelines or explain non-compliance. The Board affirmed the original finding, agreeing with the WCJ that citing the MTUS is not strictly required if the medical evidence is otherwise compelling and consistent with the guidelines. While one commissioner concurred, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that MTUS citation is not necessary for compliance with Labor Code section 4604.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Diego Unified School DistrictYork Risk Services GroupPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryFurther Medical TreatmentRight Shoulder SurgeryMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleACOEM guidelines
References
0
Case No. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
9
Case No. ADJ15329380
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

BERTHA VALERIO vs. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; XL INSURANCE

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from August 5, 2025, concerning an injury sustained by applicant Bertha Valerio on September 9, 2021. The F&A found that applicant's injury was AOE/COE, defendant failed to prove improper treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN), and lien claimant Joyce Altman Interpreting, Inc. established their market rate for interpreting services. Defendant contended that medical treatment and interpreter services were unreasonable due to treatment outside the MPN and failure to adhere to MTUS/ACOEM guidelines, and that the market rate for interpreter services was not properly established. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that defendant failed to sustain its burden of proof on the MPN issue, the MTUS/ACOEM guideline issue was not raised at trial, and lien claimant properly established their market rate.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Provider NetworkMPNRequests for AuthorizationRFAsLien ClaimantMarket RateLabor Code Section 4600
References
10
Case No. ADJ8286511
Regular
May 30, 2017

HECTOR SANCHEZ BARRAGAN vs. T&T MARKETING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that upheld an Independent Medical Review (IMR) denial of a Norco prescription. The applicant argued the IMR determination exceeded the Administrative Director's authority due to a plainly erroneous application of Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines. The WCAB denied the petition, adopting the trial judge's report which found the IMR reviewer correctly applied medical expertise to select relevant MTUS sections for chronic opioid use. The Board determined the applicant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of erroneous MTUS application or that the IMR decision was otherwise invalid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewNorcoMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleAdministrative DirectorLabor CodeChronic Pain Medical Treatment Guidelines
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello

This is a dissenting opinion challenging the majority's conclusion that an association of New York Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) lacks standing to sue the Commissioner of Health. The CRNAs challenged new 'Guidelines' which stipulate that CRNAs should provide services in office-based surgery only under supervision by a physician, dentist, or podiatrist 'qualified by law, regulation or hospital appointment to perform and supervise the administration of the anesthesia.' The dissent argues that the Guidelines, though presented as recommendations, are effectively regulations that will severely injure CRNAs' employment opportunities by requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist, making CRNAs redundant due to cost-prohibitive duplication of services. The dissenting judge criticizes the majority for deeming the CRNAs' evidence of economic harm as 'speculation' despite extensive factual showings from affidavits, asserting that precedent supports standing in such cases.

CRNA supervisionStandingGuidelines as regulationsEconomic injuryNurse anesthetistsAnesthesiologist supervisionOffice-based surgeryHealthcare regulationsJudicial dissentPhysician qualification
References
4
Case No. ADJ8100720
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

CELIA PEREZ DE PRECIADO vs. ROSS STORES, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of home health care services, arguing the Medical Treatment Utilization Standards (MTUS) did not apply to her requested assistance. The Appeals Board found the 2009 MTUS guideline used in the initial denial was an invalid regulation. Consequently, the Board rescinded findings that the Administrative Director acted within authority and that the determination was not plainly erroneous. The matter is returned for further proceedings, including a new Independent Medical Review, to properly assess the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Utilization Review (UR)Medical Treatment Utilization Standards (MTUS)Home Health CareActivities of Daily Living (ADLs)Labor Code section 4600(h)Plainly Erroneous FindingsAdministrative Director (AD)Void Ab Initio
References
9
Case No. ADJ1429214 (LAO 0753357)
Regular
Sep 21, 2018

ELIAZAR ACEVEDO vs. SPIENELLO CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved an applicant's appeal of an Independent Medical Review (IMR) decision that denied home health care services, arguing the MTUS guidelines were erroneous. The applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's denial, claiming the MTUS conflicted with Labor Code section 4600 by requiring a homebound status. However, the applicant subsequently reached a settlement with the defendant on all outstanding issues. Therefore, the Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and returned the matter to the trial level to finalize the settlement.

Eliazar AcevedoSpinello ConstructionState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1429214LAO 0753357Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Home Health Care ServicesMedical Treatment Utilization Standards (MTUS)
References
0
Case No. ADJ10373550
Regular
Apr 25, 2019

EVALINA AGUILAR-RIVAS vs. K&H SUBWAY, INC., dba AAA SUBWAY INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.; EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision denying recovery for three lien claimants: Kohanim Chiropractic, Metropolitan Health Group, and SoCal Interpreting. The lien claimants failed to prove their medical services or interpreting services were reasonable and necessary under the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS), as required by Labor Code section 5402(c). Specifically, they did not demonstrate that the treatment was consistent with MTUS guidelines or that interpreter invoices were properly submitted to the defendant. Therefore, the Board concluded the lien claimants did not meet their burden of proof for reimbursement.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantsMedical-Legal CostsSelf-Procured TreatmentLabor Code Section 5402(c)Utilization ReviewDelay PeriodBurden of ProofMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
1
Case No. ADJ1798944 (LBO 0326931)
Regular
Jun 13, 2018

MARIA FIGUEROA vs. HELP NET, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision disallowing his lien for chiropractic services provided between 2001 and 2005. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, finding the claimant's petition timely due to defective service. Crucially, the Board determined that the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) was improperly applied; instead, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) guidelines, in effect during the treatment period, should govern the determination of reasonable and necessary care. The matter is remanded to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the ACOEM guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS)American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM)Labor Code Section 4600(b)SB 899Compromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)
References
3
Case No. ADJ10917168 (MF)
Regular
Oct 21, 2019

JACOB PIKE vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case concerns an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying a right knee meniscal transplantation. The judge found the requested treatment did not fall within presumptively correct Medical Treatment Utilization Standards (MTUS) or present sufficient scientific evidence to rebut the presumption. Applicant argued the physician's report constituted scientific evidence and supported medical necessity, but the Board affirmed the denial. The Board found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of scientific medical evidence for treatment outside MTUS guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Factindustrial injuryright knee meniscal transplantationUtilization Review (UR)Medical Treatment Utilization Standards (MTUS)Labor Code sections 4604.55307.27medically necessary
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 203 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