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. ADJ9326556 ADJ9768185
Regular
Mar 16, 2018

Walter Donovan vs. United Parcel Service, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves applicant Walter Donovan, a UPS truck driver, seeking a higher occupational group number (460, material handlers) than the WCJ's finding (350, truck drivers). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, applying the "dual occupation" rule. They found Donovan's duties as a delivery driver included significant loading and unloading, thus entitling him to the higher-rated group number 460 for permanent disability calculations. The Board's decision amends the original award to reflect this occupational group assignment.

Dual occupation ruleOccupational group numberTruck driversMaterial handlersMachine loadersPackage deliveryPermanent disabilityPetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ6914901, ADJ3554819 (GRO 0003162), ADJ1000021 (GRO 0002782)
Regular
Mar 07, 2016

OSIEL GARZA vs. COUNTY OF TULARE, CORVEL

The WCAB granted the employer's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that required claims handlers to appear at a status conference. The Board found the mandatory appearance of claims handlers from out of the local area to be burdensome and costly, causing substantial prejudice. While affirming the general order to rescind a previous award, the WCAB amended it to remove the personal appearance requirement for the claims handlers. This decision emphasizes that defense counsel's presence and a claims handler's availability by phone generally suffice for such conferences.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDecision After RemovalOrder Rescinding Findings of FactAwardand OrdersCounty of TulareCorvelState Compensation Insurance FundWCJ
References
Case No. SDO 0316261
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

Marva Smith vs. SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Marva Smith's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). Smith argued the WCJ had a conflict of interest due to prior employment with SCIF, which she claimed was a former claims processor for her employer, and that the WCJ might be a material witness. The Board found no evidence connecting the WCJ's prior employment to the current case or establishing her as a material witness, thus denying the disqualification petition.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJState Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF)Conflict of InterestPrior EmploymentMaterial WitnessDisputed Evidentiary FactsAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)San Diego State University
References
Case No. ADJ292109 (LAO 0863163)
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

Erica Brumfield vs. County of Los Angeles, Department of Social Services, York Risk Services

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's dismissal order. The dismissal was based on a defendant's petition containing material misrepresentations and improper service on the unrepresented applicant. Crucially, the defendant failed to properly serve notice of dismissal proceedings, and the applicant was actively pursuing her claim as evidenced by her communications with adjusters and medical providers. Therefore, the dismissal order is void *ab initio* due to lack of due process and material misrepresentations.

Amended Petition to Set Aside DismissalPetition to Dismiss Based On Lack of Prosecutionvoid ab initiomaterial misrepresentationPetition for Reconsiderationrescind the Orderindustrial injuryunrepresentedin propria personamisrepresentation of facts
References
Case No. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
Case No. ADJ9460638
Regular

DAVID HAMALIAN vs. HANSEL FORD, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration regarding a WCJ's order that rescinded a prior finding of no material defect in the defendant's Utilization Review (UR). This decision was based on a subsequent en banc ruling, *Dubon II*, which held that UR decisions are invalid only if untimely. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's Amended Findings & Order and remanded the case for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with *Dubon II*. The prior finding that the UR was not materially defective was rescinded, and the matter will be reheard to determine the UR's timeliness and applicant's need for surgery.

Utilization ReviewMaterial DefectDubon IDubon IIPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderRescindedAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardEn Banc Decision
References
Case No. ADJ7936995
Regular
Dec 31, 2012

MARIA AVILA vs. RESIDENCE INN/MARRIOTT HOT SPRINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the challenged WCJ order compelling the production of claims records was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken because the defendant demonstrated significant prejudice and irreparable harm from discovery requests that were vague, overbroad, and potentially violated attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines, failing to show good cause or materiality.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition for ReconsiderationSubpoena Duces Tecum (SDT)Motion to QuashAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineOverbroad DiscoveryIrreparable HarmInterlocutory Order
References
Case No. AHM 0123574
Regular
Sep 05, 2007

ISIDRO SANCHEZ vs. VOLT SERVICES GROUP, AIG/AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration and granted the defendant's petition. The Board amended the original award to reduce the applicant's permanent disability rating from 14% to 10%, decreasing the permanent disability indemnity from $12,050 to $8,050. The applicant's attorney fee was also adjusted to $1,200.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDVOLT SERVICES GROUPAIG/AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurylow backlower extremitiesmaterials handlerfurther medical treatment
References
Case No. ADJ6577126
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

NANCY MORGAN vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding applicant sustained a heart injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board rescinded the prior decision, finding the Qualified Medical Examiner's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to an incorrect understanding of causation and an inadequate factual basis. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record.

AOE/COEsubstantial evidencereconsiderationfindings of factopinionWCJindustrial injuryheart conditionmaterial handlerhypertension
References
Case No. ADJ10015666, ADJ12280547
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

YGNACIO PONCE vs. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, EARTHBOUND FARMS

Applicant Ygnacio Ponce sought reconsideration of Findings and Orders issued on July 19, 2021, which found that he did not sustain injury to several body parts and was not entitled to additional QME panels for internal medicine and psychology. Ponce specifically contended the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) erred in denying a QME to determine if he sustained a psyche injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the F&O, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support causation for the alleged psyche injury and that the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking a QME panel within the mandated discovery period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrdersMaterial HandlerRight Shoulder InjuryPermanent StationaryNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Petition to ReopenPsyche Injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 218 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