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. 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The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award due to the administrative law judge's (WCJ) failure to fully analyze the issues presented in *Ogilvie I* and *Ogilvie II*.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. ADJ1177048
En Banc
Feb 03, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board holds that the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) portion of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities is rebuttable and establishes a specific, multi-step method for doing so, based on the employee's individualized proportional earnings loss and a numeric formula consistent with Labor Code § 4660 and RAND Institute data.

DFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttableDiminished Future Earning CapacityLabor Code section 4660RAND dataProportional Earnings LossWhole Person ImpairmentEmployment Development DepartmentVocational Rehabilitation
References
31
Case No. ADJ1177048 (SFO 048779)
Regular
Dec 15, 2011

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This case concerns an applicant's permanent disability benefits following an industrial injury. The Court of Appeal held that to rebut the 2005 rating schedule's earning capacity adjustment, an employee must demonstrate specific errors in the formula, data, or resulting calculation, or show the rating is inadequate for the injury's impact. The Court reversed a prior award and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and remanded to the WCJ for a new decision consistent with the Court of Appeal's opinion, allowing for further proceedings.

Remittitur2005 rating schedulediminished future earning capacityDFECearning capacity adjustmentscheduled ratingrebuttalpermanent partial disabilityapportionmenten banc decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ1177048
Significant
Feb 03, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board holds that the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule is rebuttable and establishes a specific, formula-based method for doing so. The matter was remanded to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this new methodology.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttalRAND StudyLabor Code section 4660Vocational RehabilitationProportional Earnings LossWhole Person ImpairmentRating to Loss Ratio
References
31
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. 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. 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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Casey

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding the computation of a claimant’s average weekly wage under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 14. The board initially disregarded subdivision 1 of section 14, which mandates a specific formula (300 times the average daily wage for a six-day worker employed "substantially the whole of the year"), and instead used the claimant's actual annual earnings ($2,345.33 for 309 days worked) because it was higher than the formula's result ($2,277). The court reversed this decision, asserting that section 14 establishes a universally applicable formula for six-day employees who worked "substantially the whole of the year," regardless of whether they worked slightly more or less than 300 days. The court found that using subdivision 3 for alternative methods was inappropriate and distinguished previous cases cited by the board. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's interpretation, with costs awarded to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Average Weekly WageWorkmen's Compensation LawWage ComputationSix-day WorkerSubstantially Whole YearStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversed and RemittedWorker's Compensation BoardEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State

Justice Smith's concurring opinion emphasizes that New York State's constitutional requirement for a "sound basic education" now necessitates the opportunity for a high school education that prepares students for competitive employment and higher education, moving beyond rudimentary skills. The opinion critically analyzes the State's existing 54-formula system for distributing education aid, specifically highlighting its failure to adequately fund high-need districts like New York City due to its inherent complexity and susceptibility to political manipulation. It asserts that the Regents Learning Standards, while rigorous, constitute the minimum skills necessary for productive citizenship, and that the State bears a constitutional responsibility to ensure all students have the opportunity to meet these standards. Justice Smith concludes that the current funding formulas are incompatible with the Legislature's duty to provide a sound education to New York City students, advocating for a statewide reform that eliminates the existing formula for New York City, determines the actual costs required for a sound basic education across all districts, and guarantees sufficient funding for every student.

Education FundingSound Basic EducationFiscal EquityState Aid FormulasRegents Learning StandardsHigh School EducationConstitutional MandateEducational PolicySchool Finance ReformNew York City Schools
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 80 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