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. ADJ7019734, ADJ7019744
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

WAJID KHAN vs. DAVITA, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Wajid Khan's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The Administrative Law Judge found Khan's occupational group number to be 212, resulting in a 69% permanent disability rating. Khan argued for a higher rating based on his duties also fitting occupational group 340, but the Board denied reconsideration. The Board found insufficient evidence to support Khan's dual occupational classification and noted his procedural violation by attaching inadmissible evidence to his petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityOccupational Group NumberDialysis TechnicianPatient Care TechnicianConsultative Rating DeterminationWCAB Rule 10166(b)
References
3
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
4
Case No. ADJ9840613
Regular
Aug 28, 2025

MINERVA TOMKA vs. PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC - SAN FRANCISCO

Applicant Minerva Tomka sought reconsideration of an order denying her petition to set aside a prior award. She alleged fraud, bad faith, misrepresentation of her occupational group, and clerical errors in the prior Stipulations with Request for Award approved by the WCJ. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The Board found no evidence of fraud or other grounds to set aside the stipulations but acknowledged clerical errors and the incorrect occupational group number. Consequently, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and issued a new order correcting the applicant's occupational group number to 214 and rectifying various clerical errors.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set Aside StipulationsStipulations with Request for AwardOccupational Group NumberDEU Consultative RatingPQMEPTPPermanent Disability RatingArising Out of and In the Course of EmploymentAOE/COE
References
12
Case No. ADJ9580355
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

MARIO PENATE vs. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the issue of permanent disability, affirming other aspects of the original award. Defendant contended the initial award improperly relied on the applicant's physician over a QME and on the applicant's impeached testimony, and used the incorrect occupational group number. The Board found the original rating instructions were incomplete regarding the lumbar spine and required clarification and re-rating. They also corrected the occupational group number to 350, as stipulated by the parties.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesDRE MethodOccupational Group NumberSubstantial EvidenceCredibilityAlmaraz-GuzmanQualified Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. ADJ10597372
Regular
Apr 13, 2020

KATORIA JONES vs. THRIFT RECYCLING, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the original Findings, Award and Order. The Board found that the applicant's occupational group number should be 360 (porters and packers) rather than 230 (machine operators and tenders). This amendment was based on the applicant's job duties as a warehouse line loader involving lifting, sorting, and moving boxes. The Board deferred issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings with the corrected occupational group number.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberSorterWarehouse workerLine loaderPDRSPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleFindings Award and OrderIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ15563281
Regular
Mar 17, 2025

LENIN QUIROZ vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the City of Los Angeles, challenging an arbitrator's findings that applicant Lenin Quiroz sustained an industrially caused testicular cancer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the defendant's contentions regarding the statute of limitations, the substantiality of medical evidence from Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Fred Kuyt, and the proper occupational group number. The Board denied the petition, affirming the arbitrator's findings that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, Dr. Kuyt's medical opinion constituted substantial evidence, and Occupational Group Number 490 was appropriate based on the applicant's job duties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Sixty-Day RuleTransmission of CaseEAMSNotice of TransmissionSubstantial Medical EvidenceAOE/COEAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
14
Case No. ADJ12582828
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

TERRY KELLY vs. SAFEWAY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding injury AOE/COE to multiple body parts. The primary dispute centers on the applicant's occupational group number, with the applicant claiming "butcher" (420) and the defendant arguing "meat cutter" (322), impacting permanent disability ratings. The Board granted reconsideration, finding insufficient evidence to determine the occupational group number and therefore deferring permanent disability for all affected body parts pending further development of the record. The finding of injury AOE/COE to the applicant's cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, bilateral elbows, and bilateral wrists was upheld.

Occupational Group NumberMeat CutterButcherCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceFurther DevelopmentBody PartsWPI Ratings
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,385 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