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. ADJ10079944
Regular
Feb 26, 2019

Robert Fndkyan vs. Opus One Labs, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to a Supplemental Job Displacement Voucher (SJDV). The original decision denied the SJDV due to the absence of a specific Physician's Return-to-Work form. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the employer was sufficiently informed of the applicant's permanent disability status and work restrictions through a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. Therefore, the Board determined that the applicant substantially complied with the requirements and is entitled to the SJDV, prioritizing substance over strict adherence to a particular form.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPhysician's Return-To-Work and Voucher formQualified Medical Evaluation ReportLabor Code section 4658.7(b)permanent and stationary statuspermanent partial disabilityvocational statuswork capacitysubstantial complianceform over substance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferguson v. Wolkin

Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident, leading to a disability leave from her employment at Harrison Radiator. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and likely an insurance carrier's request, she was examined by the defendant, an Impartial Medical Opinion Examiner. The defendant reported that the plaintiff was fit to return to work. Plaintiff returned to work and subsequently suffered a back injury, alleging it was caused by her premature return due to the defendant's negligent report, which she claimed failed to adequately consider a myelogram. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of physician-patient duty beyond the examination itself, or immunity. The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that no physician-patient relationship extended to the reporting of medical findings in this context.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipImpartial Medical ExaminerSummary JudgmentDuty of CareDisability ClaimWorkers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentBack InjuryMyelogram
References
3
Case No. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. ADJ11298015
Regular
May 27, 2025

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that she was precluded from a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit, despite receiving a second Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The applicant contended that her second voucher was 'subsequent' to her first RTWSP payment, fulfilling an exception in Rule 17302(b). The Appeals Board clarified that the exception refers to the date of injury being subsequent, not the voucher issuance date. As the record lacked a finding on the cumulative trauma date of injury, the Board rescinded the previous order and returned the case to the trial level for this determination.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB vouchercumulative trauma injuryspecific injurydate of injuryLabor Code section 139.48Rule 17302Rule 17309Administrative Procedures Act
References
7
Case No. ADJ8833300, ADJ8833298
Regular
Oct 20, 2019

RICHARD FEIGEL PEREZ vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, JT-2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The applicant alleged the defendant City of Oakland violated Labor Code section 132a by discriminating against him when returning to work after an industrial injury. The Board found the record unclear as to whether the defendant deviated from its own return-to-work procedures as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, specifically regarding the review of treating physician reports and the scheduling of fitness-for-duty tests. Further development of the record is needed to determine if a prima facie case of discrimination was established and if the defendant had legitimate business reasons for its actions.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationFitness for Duty TestReturn to WorkMemorandum of Understanding (MOU)Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)WCAB
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Donohue v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc.

The claimant sustained a disabling wrist fracture in April 1982 and was cleared by her physician and the employer's carrier's physician to return to work by August 1, 1982. However, she informed her employer she would not return, citing continued difficulties, and subsequently missed a scheduled examination by the company physician, claiming a broken foot. Her employment was terminated on August 18, 1982. The claimant alleged retaliatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found her testimony not credible and concluded that the employer had a valid, non-retaliatory reason for termination due to her uncooperative behavior. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, determining it was supported by substantial evidence and that the employer was justified in the discharge.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer JustificationEmployee UncooperativenessMedical Examination FindingsDisability ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yannucci v. Consolidated Freightways

A claimant, a truck driver, sustained back and shoulder injuries after striking a curb. He returned to a light-duty clerical position but later retired. The Workers' Compensation Board denied him further benefits, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. On appeal, the central issue was whether his disability caused or contributed to his retirement. Conflicting medical opinions were presented, with his treating physician recommending retirement due to a 75% permanent partial disability, while the employer's physician believed he could continue light-duty work. The Board credited the employer's physician, noting the employer's accommodations and no lost work time in the light-duty role. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported its decision.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketDisability benefitsLight-duty workMedical evidencePermanent partial disabilityCredibility determinationSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetirement
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05273
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Matter of Garrison-Bey v. Department of Educ.

The case concerns William Garrison-Bey, a security officer, who sustained work-related injuries to his neck, back, left knee, and left elbow in April 2016. After returning to work without reduced earnings, he was evaluated for permanency. Consulting physicians found a 27.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) to his left knee and nonschedule permanent injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his request for an SLU award, classifying him with a nonschedule permanent partial disability. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Board's decision, ruling that a claimant who sustains both schedule and nonschedule permanent injuries in the same accident and returns to work at preinjury wages is entitled to an SLU award for permanent partial impairments to statutorily enumerated body parts. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsAppellate ReviewRemandMedical ImpairmentInjury ClassificationEmployer LiabilityJudicial Precedent
References
4
Case No. ADJ8981638
Regular
Jan 19, 2019

ANTHONY INGRASSI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries to his left shoulder, lumbar spine, right hip, and left elbow. The defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award, arguing the $36\%$ permanent disability award should only be paid over 173 weeks and that the Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) increase was unwarranted. The Appeals Board amended the award to reflect 173 weeks for the permanent disability and affirmed the $4658(d)(2)$ increase, finding the defendant failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for return-to-work offers after the applicant's medical condition became permanent and stationary, despite the applicant's brief return to work. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the $4658(d)(2)$ increase should not apply as the defendant's failure to issue a second notice was form over substance given the applicant was already working full duty.

Labor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Permanent Disability AwardApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent Impairment RatingsNotice of Offer of Regular WorkDWC-AD 10118Substantial ComplianceReturn to Work Incentives
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 12,268 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