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. ADJ119309 (OAK 0332713) ADJ1352097 (OAK 332714)
Regular
Aug 09, 2011

KEN LAWHN vs. FARMERS INSURANCE, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's order compelling a neuropsychological evaluation. The Board determined the WCJ's order was an interim discovery ruling, not a final decision on substantive rights, making it ineligible for reconsideration. The applicant's petition for removal was also denied, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for the original order. The applicant had argued the evaluation was an invasion of privacy and unnecessary as neuropsychological health was not at issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeuropsychological QME evaluationNon-industrial closed head injuryOpen labor marketPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderDiscovery orderInterim orderSubstantive rights
References
4
Case No. ADJ11186013
Regular
Jul 23, 2023

Francisco Diaz vs. Southeast Employee Leasing Services, Inc., State National Insurance Co.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the original Findings and Order. The amendment clarifies that injury AOE/COE was stipulated by the parties to the right elbow, left elbow, and right ankle. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding the need for a neuropsychological examination for the brain and head, and the need for medical treatment. However, the Board rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the appointment of a QME and the admissibility of QME reports, deferring to the WCJ's Report for affirmation on those points.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderneuropsychological examinationAOE/COEqualified medical evaluatorstipulated injuryReport and Recommendationbody partsneurology
References
0
Case No. ADJ4004824 (OAK 0302288), ADJ3234784 (OAK 0298501)
Regular
Jan 24, 2017

LINDA SALMON vs. HOME DEPOT, permissibly self-insured and administered by HELMSAN MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board denied Linda Salmon's petition for reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award. The original award found her eligible for workers' compensation for a head and neuropsychological injury, awarding 19% permanent disability and temporary disability indemnity. However, it denied claims for heart and psyche injuries and allowed the employer a credit for temporary disability overpayment. Salmon sought reconsideration, arguing error in the credit, denial of self-procured medical expenses, and an inadequate permanent disability rating. The Board adopted the judge's report, denying the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationNeuropsychological injuryTemporary disability indemnityPermanent disability ratingDiminished future earnings capacityVocational expertReport and RecommendationSupplemental petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ2381643
Regular
Jan 11, 2010

EMILIO GARZA vs. WATERFLOW IRRIGATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal regarding a 100% permanent disability finding for Emilio Garza, who sustained injuries to multiple body parts. The defendant argued against the 100% rating, citing stipulated reports at 87% and a lack of vocational expert testimony. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding substantial evidence supported the WCJ's decision, particularly Dr. Ponton's neuropsychological opinion that the applicant could not compete in the open labor market due to cognitive, emotional, and physical limitations. The Board also found the defendant's contentions regarding apportionment and the RS Medical lien to be without merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmilio GarzaWaterflow IrrigationState Compensation Insurance FundIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityAgreed medical examination reportsVocational rehabilitationCognitive Disorder NOSTraumatic brain injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ9318348
Regular
Aug 06, 2019

JENNIFER MCMULLEN vs. SPORTSMARK, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case concerns an applicant claiming injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts, including the pituitary gland and cognitive loss, resulting in headaches. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original Findings, Award, and Orders (FA&O) due to deficiencies in the medical evidence regarding permanent disability. The WCAB found Dr. Anderson's impairment ratings lacked substantial evidence and ordered further development of the record, including potential re-evaluation by Dr. Anderson and specialized opinions from ophthalmology and neuropsychology. The Board also upheld the prior finding of injury AOE/COE to the psyche, denying defendant's request to withdraw from that stipulation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationInjury AOE/COEFindings Award and OrdersPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4662Sub Rosa SurveillanceQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)StipulationsFurther Development of the Record
References
0
Case No. ADJ14053925
Regular
May 16, 2025

AMIR BAIGMORADI vs. NEP GROUP, INC.; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact, Award & Order. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision to admit the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., deeming them substantial medical evidence. The Board further agreed with Dr. Gonzalez's method of adding impairment ratings for the applicant's neurological and psychiatric conditions, citing the synergistic effects on daily living activities. Additionally, the WCAB concluded that the applicant's injury, resulting from being crushed by an LED screen, constituted a "violent act" under Labor Code § 4660.1(c)(2)(A), entitling him to an increased psychiatric permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemAdmissibility of medical reportsValdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Batten v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial evidenceVigil v. County of Kern
References
19
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. ADJ11995067
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

ADELINA PEREZ vs. KYONG AE YUN, CHONG MYON YUN, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Adelina Perez sought removal of a May 9, 2022, Findings & Order (F&O) by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found Dr. Marcel Ponton's medical-legal report inadmissible and ordered his replacement, arguing Dr. Ponton was a treating physician to whom Labor Code section 4062.3 did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the petition as one for reconsideration and found that Dr. Ponton was indeed a treating physician, not a panel-selected medical-legal evaluator, rendering section 4062.3 inapplicable. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted new findings affirming Dr. Ponton's role as a treating physician, and ordered his continuation as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator.

RemovalReconsiderationLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical-legal evaluatorTreating physicianMPNNeuropsychological assessmentTraumatic brain injuryAdmissibility of evidence
References
17
Showing 1-8 of 8 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