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. ADJ6721939
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

BERTHA NORIEGA GARCIA vs. PATRICK L. HINRICHSEN, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

This case is remanded for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not fully analyze the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor under the *Ogilvie* decisions. The ALJ improperly relied solely on applicant's testimony for lost earnings without a proper *Ogilvie* analysis, including the duration of post-injury earnings and consideration of other factors affecting earning capacity. The ALJ must conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, weigh the evidence, and explain how the adjusted DFEC factor reflects the applicant's actual earning capacity compared to the scheduled rating. The Board also clarified that temporary disability indemnity is not to be treated as post-injury earnings.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFECOgilvie analysisRebuttalScheduled Permanent Disability RatingPost-injury earningsEarnings lossTemporary disability indemnityPermanent and stationary dateTriers-of-fact
References
3
Case No. ADJ2110739 (MON 0313927)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Rosalind Eskridge (Vallery) vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case returns to the trial level for a comprehensive re-analysis of applicant's permanent disability rating, specifically focusing on the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor. The Board rescinded the prior award because the judge's decision did not fully adhere to the *Ogilvie* en banc decisions, which mandate a specific four-step analysis for rebutting the DFEC. The judge must now conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, potentially developing the record further, to determine if the applicant's demonstrated earning loss and other relevant factors, including *Montana* factors, justify an individualized DFEC adjustment over the scheduled rating. The applicant bears the burden of proving that her evidence substantially overcomes the prima facie validity of the scheduled DFEC.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECPermanent Disability Rating Schedule2005 PDRSOgilvie analysisAgreed Medical ExaminerDisability Evaluation UnitDEUAgreed Medical Examiner
References
6
Case No. ADJ2360182 (MON 0334561) ADJ493129 (MON 0334562) ADJ3850358 (MON 0334563)
Regular
Oct 18, 2010

YOLANDA M. PIDECH vs. METROPOLITAN STATE HOSPITAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings because the WCJ did not adequately consider the applicant's post-injury earning capacity as required by *Ogilvie I* and *Ogilvie II*. The WCJ failed to adequately explain the calculation of the applicant's earnings loss and did not provide substantial medical evidence supporting her inability to work. The Board requires further development of the record, particularly medical opinions on work capacity, before a complete *Ogilvie* analysis can be performed. This includes assessing whether the earning loss is industrially caused and weighing the adjusted DFEC factor against the scheduled factor.

Ogilvie analysisDFEC rebuttalpost-injury earning capacitypermanent disability ratingAgreed Medical Evaluatorsubstantial medical evidencevocational rehabilitationloss of earning capacityindustrial injurytemporary disability
References
13
Case No. ADJ2079252
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

JON SHINI vs. PACIFIC COAST AUTO BODY & TRUCK, FARMERS SANTA ANA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award due to the administrative law judge's (WCJ) failure to fully analyze the issues presented in *Ogilvie I* and *Ogilvie II*. Specifically, the WCJ improperly applied the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) rebuttal formula without sufficient evidentiary development regarding the applicant's post-injury earnings and potential for malingering. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, including weighing the scheduled rating against the adjusted DFEC factor and considering factors such as the applicant's credibility. The defendant's contention regarding industrial injury to the psyche was not addressed, with the Board allowing it to be raised in further proceedings.

OgilvieDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECReconsiderationRebuttalPermanent Disability Rating SchedulePost-injury earningsEarning capacityAgreed Medical EvaluatorMalingering
References
3
Case No. ADJ460838 (SBR 0324688)
Regular
Feb 08, 2010

ERNEST CARMICHAEL, JR. vs. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, finding the judge failed to adequately analyze the applicant's post-injury earnings loss under the *Ogilvie* standard. The applicant must prove that their earnings loss is directly caused by the industrial injury, not unrelated factors like psychiatric conditions or voluntary retirement. VA and Social Security disability benefits are not considered "earnings" for these calculations. The case is remanded for a proper *Ogilvie* analysis of the causes of the applicant's earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical EvidencePermanent Disability Rating ScheduleVeteran's Administration disability benefitsSocial Security benefitsPost-injury earnings lossOgilvie analysis
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. ADJ4299001
Regular
Mar 08, 2010

JOAQUIN CORTEZ vs. FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORTION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the permanent disability rating of 54% awarded to applicant Joaquin Cortez. The defendant argued the rating was improperly calculated under *Ogilvie II*, which dictates the burden of proof lies with the party rebutting the scheduled rating. The WCAB found the vocational expert's analysis flawed due to contradictory assumptions about the applicant's pre- and post-injury earning capacity. Consequently, the WCAB reversed the 54% award, finding the applicant failed to rebut the scheduled 13% permanent disability rating and issued an award for 13% disability.

Ogilvie IIOgilvie IDFECPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationRebuttalVocational ExpertWhole Person ImpairmentRAND dataLabor Code section 4660
References
3
Case No. ADJ1310387 (OAK 0333577)
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

DOREEN DAHL vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for industrial injury to the applicant's neck and right shoulder. The primary issue on reconsideration was whether the applicant successfully rebutted the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor in the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's vocational expert provided sufficient testimony to rebut the PDRS rating for the shoulder injury by focusing on similarly situated workers, as permitted by *Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco*. The Board clarified that this *LeBoeuf* analysis can apply even with less than 100% permanent disability and does not impermissibly rely on non-industrial factors when assessing DFEC. Therefore, the WCJ's decision awarding future medical treatment and 79% permanent disability is affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical Records TechnicianCumulative PeriodPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentDiminished Future Earning CapacityPermanent Disability Rating Schedule
References
11
Case No. ADJ2290172
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

LINDA JENKINS vs. FAMILY PRACTICE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved applicant Linda Jenkins seeking to reopen her workers' compensation award based on a change in the law following the *Ogilvie* decisions. The WCJ found good cause to reopen, ruling that *Ogilvie* established a new framework for rebutting the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) component of permanent disability ratings. The defendant argued *res judicata* barred reopening and that *Ogilvie* was merely a clarification, not a change in law. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that *Ogilvie* did indeed represent a significant change in law regarding DFEC rebuttal and permitted the reopening of applicant's case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings & OrderChange in LawOgilvieDiminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC)RebuttalRes JudicataPermanent DisabilityAMA Guides
References
8
Case No. ADJ1329489
Regular
Sep 06, 2011

CHAVA COHEN vs. SHERIDAN ASSISTED LIVING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns vocational consultant Judie Fogel's request for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB previously rescinded an order for defendants to pay Fogel $1,700.00 for "medical legal expense for issues relating to the Ogilvie case," finding her testimony deficient and thus non-recoverable costs. Fogel argued her testimony addressed more than just Ogilvie issues, including average weekly wages, and that it was not necessary for her to independently calculate wage loss. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reiterating that Fogel was retained specifically for Ogilvie issues and her testimony remained deficient, citing precedent.

Vocational consultantReconsiderationOpinion and OrderMedical legal expenseOgilvie caseWage lossAverage weekly wagesPermanent disability ratingReimbursementEn banc decisions
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 317 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