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. ADJ10443669
Regular
Oct 04, 2017

Donna Carter vs. Rose International Group, OneBeacon Insurance Group

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that Donna Carter sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and left wrist on May 18, 2016. Despite inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony regarding a slip and fall incident, her account was corroborated by a witness who found her on the floor. Medical records from the day of the incident also supported the applicant's claim, establishing a clear mechanism of injury. The Board found that the common sense nature of a slip and fall does not require expert medical opinion to establish industrial causation for the incident itself.

ADJ10443669Rose International GroupOneBeacon Insurance GroupDonna CarterWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationslip and fallindustrial injuryright kneeleft wrist
References
Case No. ADJ8750063, ADJ8610968
Regular
Sep 04, 2018

SAYDIEL OCANA vs. SELAH GOURMET FOOD, dba COUNTRY HOUSE, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior WCJ decision. The Board ruled that defendant is allowed to forward vocational rehabilitation expert reports to the Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). This decision acknowledges the nexus between medical and vocational evidence and allows QMEs to consider this information when determining permanent disability ratings. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalVocational Rehabilitation ReportsQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code Section 4062.3Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 35Joint Findings and OrderIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability RatingDiscovery OrderNexus
References
Case No. ADJ8499483
Regular
Jun 23, 2014

ANSELMO LEAL TORRES vs. CARDENAS MARKET

Applicant Anselmo Leal Torres sought reconsideration of a prior order denying his workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's finding that Torres did not sustain an industrial injury. The Board found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof and waived the argument regarding the presumption of compensability by not raising it earlier. Medical evidence did not support a nexus between the claimed injuries and employment.

AOE/COELabor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityWCJ findingscredibility assessmentpreponderance of the evidenceindustrial injurynexuswaiver of issuesPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9109076 (MF) ADJ9109415
Regular
Nov 06, 2015

ALFREDO BARAJAS vs. VESSEY & COMPANY, INC.; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the finding that applicant's claims for industrial injury were barred by the statute of limitations. However, the Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision that the applicant failed to prove industrial causation for his left eye injury and cumulative injuries to his neck, back, shoulders, and foot. The applicant lacked medical evidence to establish a nexus between the alleged incidents and his disabling conditions. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderIndustrial InjuryStatute of LimitationsTolledAffirmative DefenseWaiverPreponderance of the EvidenceIndustrial Causation
References
Case No. ADJ298021 (VNO 443400)
Regular
Mar 23, 2009

JOHN TOMKIES vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

This case concerns John Tomkies' claim that the City of Los Angeles violated Labor Code section 132a by refusing to place him on an eligible-for-rehire list due to absences from his prior employment caused by an industrial injury. The Appeals Board denied the City's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of discrimination. The Board found it had subject matter jurisdiction, as the discriminatory act stemmed from the employment relationship, even though Tomkies had resigned. The Board distinguished this case from precedent where the claimant had no continuing ties or rights arising from their prior employment.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRehire listEligible for rehireIndustrial injurySubject matter jurisdictionFormer employeeCivil Service Rule 9NexusEmployer-employee relationship
References
Case No. ADJ665716
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

JUDD GLOVER vs. ACCU CONSTRUCTION, FIRST COMP OMAHA

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a high-velocity eye injury on June 8, 2006, along with injuries to his head, brain, and psyche. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding of a high-velocity eye injury and ongoing temporary total disability. However, the Board remanded the case to the trial level for further development of the record to determine if the eye injury contributes to the applicant's continuing temporary disability, which is necessary for extended benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F). Issues of additional temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees were deferred pending this determination.

High-velocity eye injuryLabor Code section 4656Temporary total disabilityReconsiderationFindings & AwardCompensable consequenceNexusAmputation exceptionCruz v. Mercedes-BenzFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ11367534
Regular
Nov 19, 2020

, DAVID BRAY vs. , INTEL CORPORATION

This case concerns whether the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has jurisdiction over an applicant hired in California but injured while working entirely out-of-state. The WCAB initially found insufficient contacts to support jurisdiction but reconsidered this decision. Citing precedent including Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305, the WCAB held that being hired in California is a sufficient connection to justify exercising jurisdiction. Therefore, the prior order was rescinded, and the applicant's case can proceed in California.

JurisdictionSitus of EmploymentContract of HireSufficient ContactsIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
Case No. ADJ7197213
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

Robert Goslin vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS/REHABILITATION; Legally Uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/ STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior award, finding that the applicant, a correctional officer, was not entitled to the industrial cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Board determined that correctional officers are not among the specifically enumerated "peace officers" eligible for this presumption. Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his cancer was industrially caused, as the medical expert found insufficient occupational exposure to link it to his employment. Consequently, the applicant's claim for injury arising out of and in the course of employment was denied.

Labor Code section 3212.1Penal Code section 830.2(d)(1)correctional officerpeace officerindustrial cancer presumptionAOE/COEPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)nexusdisputable presumptionexpressio unius exclusio alterius
References
Case No. ADJ18852673
Regular
Jul 14, 2025

Harrison P. Wenson vs. Los Angeles Angels, Ace American Insurance Company/Chubb

Applicant Harrison P. Wenson sought reconsideration of a WCJ's April 14, 2025, Findings of Fact and Order, which found no California subject matter jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. Wenson argued jurisdiction based on Labor Code section 3600.5(d) exceptions, the defendant being a California employer, and his employment with a California-based team. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further study the jurisdictional issue, deferring a final decision after reconsideration.

Cumulative traumaSubject matter jurisdictionProfessional athleteLabor Code section 3600.5(d)Employer controlCalifornia-based teamContract of hireDuty daysSignificant connectionNexus
References
Case No. ADJ526691, ADJ3636578
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

Jitka Van Dyne vs. United Airlines, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal. The WCAB adopted the Judge's report, stating removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant failed to object to the declaration of readiness and has an adequate remedy at trial for evidentiary disputes. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceDeclaration of ReadinessAdmissibility of EvidenceDue DiligenceAneurysmIndustrial InjuryLay Opinion
References
Showing 1-10 of 22 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