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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. VNO 0272543, VNO 0246317
Regular
May 12, 2008

JOSE ACEVES vs. FERNANDO AUTO SALES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the State Compensation Insurance Fund's petition for removal, overturning an interim decision that disallowed direct testimony from defendant's medical witnesses. The Board ruled that the restrictions on direct medical witness testimony in Rules 10606 and 10727 do not apply when physicians are testifying as percipient witnesses to issues like billing practices or illegal supervision of aides, rather than about the treatment of specific injured workers. Therefore, the testimony of these physicians is now allowed at trial.

Removal petitionInterim Findings and Awarddirect examinationmedical witnessespercipient witnessesadministrative proceduresbilling practicesscope of practiceLabor Code section 5708WCAB Rules 10606
References
Case No. ADJ2203036 (SAC 0198508) ADJ4156707 (SAC 0224575)
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

SANDI ODA vs. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a dispute over the deposition of Dr. Michael Kasman, who began an evaluation of the applicant but never completed it. The applicant sought to quash the deposition notice, citing due process, privacy, attorney work product, and the fact that Dr. Kasman was withdrawn as their expert. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal solely to limit the scope of the deposition. The Board amended the discovery order to clarify that Dr. Kasman can only be deposed as a percipient witness regarding his attempted examination, not as a medical expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterim Discovery OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceMotion to QuashDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney Work Product PrivilegePercipient WitnessCumulative Injury
References
Case No. ADJ2581050 (SRO 0112855)
Regular
Nov 10, 2009

KAPKA NIKOLOVA vs. J.T. ENTERPRISES, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Board granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the 99% permanent disability finding but deleting the $490.00 reimbursement for the testimony of Jill Peterson, as she was a percipient witness, not an expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityJill PetersonLabor Code Section 5811Percipient WitnessExpert Witness FeesSubstantial EvidenceWCJ FindingsCredibility Determinations
References
Case No. ADJ4242717 (VNO 0420852) ADJ7278860
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

PHILLIP WILLIAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION - CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding a WCJ's order compelling former attorney John Ferrone to attend trial as a witness. The Board found that the only subpoena issued for Ferrone was to attend a trial date that had long passed, was not personally served, and had potentially been withdrawn. Compelling a witness's attendance requires a valid subpoena, and no such valid subpoena existed for the current trial date.

Petition for RemovalAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoenaWCJ OrderFraud or MistakeStipulation and OrderMotion to QuashAttorney as WitnessCompelled AttendancePercipient Witness
References
Case No. ADJ3473535
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

BARBARA DANGERFIELD vs. AMERICAN COMPANION & HOMEMAKER SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted South Lake Medical Center's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that compelled specific witnesses to appear and threatened lien dismissal and sanctions. The Board found the order imposed undue prejudice on South Lake, mischaracterized a medical expert as a percipient witness, and lacked legal basis for lien dismissal based on witness non-appearance. While the request for WCJ disqualification was untimely, the trial date remains.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderPercipient WitnessMedical ExpertLien DismissalSanctionsWCAB Rule 10606Compromise and ReleaseChiropractic VisitsLabor Code 4604.5
References
Case No. ADJ6602419
Regular
May 24, 2010

SIPRIANO MARTINEZ (Deceased) MARINA MARTINEZ (Widow) vs. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, ALL AMERICAN RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order denying a change of venue because the order was procedural, not final. However, the WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding that the denial of venue change to Bakersfield was an error. The Board concluded that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated good cause under Labor Code section 5501.6 for a venue change to Bakersfield, where the applicant and witnesses reside and the events occurred. Therefore, venue was changed to the Bakersfield District Office.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6(b)Due ProcessBakersfield District OfficeSan Francisco District OfficeFinal OrderProcedural OrderPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. ANA 388603
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

MEI.TEM NARTER vs. SAS INSTITUTE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that disallowed an applicant's attorney a fee for attending a defendant's deposition of a percipient witness. The Board found no statutory authority for such a fee, as Labor Code section 5710 only allows fees for deponents who are the injured employee or their dependent. The Board also rejected arguments to analogize the situation to other fee-granting statutes and clarified that attorney fees are generally not considered recoverable costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDeposition FeePercipient WitnessMedical-Legal CostLabor CodeAttorney's FeesSection 5710
References
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
Showing 1-10 of 499 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