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. ADJ7925931, ADJ7925917
Regular
Sep 27, 2017

LUISA SEQUEIRA vs. RANDSTAD PLACEMENT PROS, ACE AMERICAN

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, arguing that the declaration of readiness to proceed was defective due to a lack of a primary treating physician's report on permanent disability. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding that Labor Code section 4061(i) does not require all treating physicians to find maximum medical improvement before proceeding to trial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) provided substantial medical evidence sufficient to support the permanent disability award, even though primary treating physicians had not yet found MMI. Therefore, the WCJ correctly relied on the PQME's report.

Declaration of readinessPermanent disabilityPrimary treating physicianQualified Medical EvaluatorMaximum medical improvementLabor Code section 4061(i)Substantial medical evidenceFindings Award and OrderReconsiderationIndustrial injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ9724680
Regular
Sep 17, 2018

JAIME RAMIREZ LEON vs. PEOPLEASE/FTU, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE

The applicant sought reconsideration of an award denying temporary disability, permanent disability, and further medical care for a right shoulder injury. The applicant argued the primary treating physician's report lacked substantial evidence due to an inadequate history and exam, and the WCJ erred in not relying on the PQME's report. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to develop the record, specifically regarding whether the primary treating physician reviewed an MRI prior to her report. The original award was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgePrimary Treating PhysicianPQMESubstantial EvidenceMedical ReportInadequate HistoryInadequate Medical Exam
References
12
Case No. ADJ7484505, ADJ7484506
Regular
Dec 18, 2019

FRANCISCO VILCHIS MONDRAGON vs. PACIFIC FLOOR COVERING, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to award a lien claimant reimbursement for psychological treatment services. The Board found that the primary treating physician did refer the applicant to the lien claimant, received and reviewed the lien claimant's reports, and thus complied with reporting requirements. This reversed the trial judge's denial of the lien based on the primary physician's alleged failure to incorporate the secondary physician's reports. The matter was returned for determination of the amount owed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPsychological Assessment ServicesPrimary Treating PhysicianSecondary Treating PhysicianRule 9785(e)(4)Reporting RequirementsMedical Treatment ExpensesIndustrial InjuryPsyche
References
3
Case No. ADJ6783209
Regular
Aug 11, 2015

JOSE CAMACHO vs. ARAMARK SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of no permanent disability. The applicant argued the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report was insufficient, and the primary treating physician's report was substantial evidence. However, the Board found the treating physician's report lacked consistency, with clinical findings contradicting the assigned impairment ratings and pain add-on. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's original findings and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Primary Treating PhysicianSubstantial Medical EvidenceMedical OpinionReasonable Medical ProbabilityImpairment Rating
References
0
Case No. ADJ10975151
Regular
Jan 06, 2020

RUSSELL CAMARA vs. TESLA, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to the lumbar spine. The Applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) designated a secondary physician to evaluate permanent and stationary status and impairment, whose report the PTP adopted. The defense challenged the validity of this secondary physician's report, arguing only the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner's (PQME) report was properly obtained. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming that the PTP, or a physician designated by the PTP, is authorized to render opinions on medical issues, provided proper notice and procedural requirements are met. The Board found the designation and subsequent report were compliant with Labor Code and Administrative Director Regulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPrimary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical ExaminerLabor Code Section 4061.5Permanent and Stationary ReportMedical-Legal EvaluationSecondary PhysicianAdministrative Director Rule 9785Designation of Physician
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Quail v. Central New York Psychiatric Center

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded a 10% schedule loss of use of the right hand. The WCB's decision was based on a September 1998 report from the carrier's consultant, which found a 10% loss. The claimant's treating physician had reportedly found a 20% loss in a July 1998 report, but this report was not properly filed. Despite multiple directives to submit a final medical report from the treating physician, claimant failed to do so before the WCLJ's decision. After the WCLJ's ruling, claimant submitted a newly prepared report from his treating physician indicating a 20% loss. The Board declined to consider this new evidence, citing its discretion to refuse evidence that could have been presented earlier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in their refusal to consider the late evidence.

Schedule Loss of UseRight Hand InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionFailure to Submit EvidenceTreating Physician ReportCarrier Consultant ReportProcedural IssuesPermanency Determination
References
2
Case No. ADJ9145724
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ARZAGA, JOSE vs. CROWN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an applicant seeking to select a pain management specialist outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued the MPN failed to provide a qualifying specialist within the required 15-mile/30-minute access standard for a primary treating physician. The Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's right to choose an out-of-network physician and reimbursement for investigative costs. The majority reasoned that the MPN must meet the closer access standard for a primary treating physician, even if that physician is a specialist. A dissenting opinion argued that a specialist, when chosen as a primary treating physician, should fall under the 30-mile/60-minute access standard for specialists.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNprimary treating physicianpain management specialistaccess standardAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5investigative costsLabor Code section 5703Lescallett v. Wal-MartMartinez v. New French Bakery
References
2
Case No. ADJ8323717
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

MARIA GONZALEZ vs. AMERICAN APPAREL, INC.; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior "take nothing" order. The Board found that the administrative law judge improperly excluded four medical reports from secondary treating physicians, ruling they were admissible evidence even if not reviewed by the primary treating physician. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decision, with the admitted medical reports to be considered. The Board emphasized that this does not reopen discovery, but allows the WCJ to weigh all evidence to determine industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderIndustrial CausationMedical ReportsAdmissible EvidencePrimary Treating PhysicianSecondary Treating PhysicianValdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code Section 4061.5
References
2
Case No. ADJ8677592
Regular
Aug 27, 2018

LINDA DAVIES vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.

This case involves a dispute over reimbursement for medical-legal expenses incurred by a lien claimant, Dr. Kauss, who was designated as the applicant's primary treating physician. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the initial award, finding that the WCJ erred in determining the compensability of Dr. Kauss's reports. The WCAB remanded the case for further proceedings to evaluate compliance with specific statutory requirements regarding objections to medical-legal bills and the distinction between IBR and non-IBR disputes. A dissenting opinion argued Dr. Kauss did not fulfill the duties of a primary treating physician and should not be reimbursed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical-Legal ExpensesPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code Section 4060Labor Code Section 4061Lien ClaimantIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewDefense Attorney
References
3
Case No. ADJ655912 (SDO 0342137) ADJ677760 (SDO 0342143)
Regular
Feb 11, 2009

MARIA E. GARCIA vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration. The Board upheld the trial judge's decision to deny massage therapy, finding it not medically necessary per ACOEM guidelines and not supported by the treating physician's reports. Conversely, the Board affirmed the need for a sleep study and orthopedic/psychiatric consults based on the primary treating physician's consistent recommendations, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the exclusion of PQME reports and admission of other evidence. Ultimately, the Board found substantial medical evidence supported the original award and denied both parties' requests for review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderNeckFurther Medical TreatmentSleep StudyOrthopedic ConsultPsychiatric ConsultMassage TherapyPanel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,079 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