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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ4274323 (ANA 0387677), ADJ1601669 (ANA 0388466)
Significant
Feb 27, 2014

Jose Dubon, Applicant vs. World Restoration, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that disputes over the timeliness and procedural compliance of utilization review (UR) are legal issues for the WCAB to decide, not matters for independent medical review (IMR). A UR decision is invalid if it has material procedural defects, such as failing to review adequate medical records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewProcedural DefectsMedical NecessityEn Banc DecisionAdministrative Director's RulesSubstantial Medical EvidenceTimelinessMaterial Procedural Defects
References
Case No. ADJ4274323 (ANA 0387677), ADJ1601669 (ANA 0388466)
En Banc
Feb 27, 2014

JOSE DUBON vs. WORLD RESTORATION, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB holds that it has jurisdiction over disputes regarding the procedural validity and timeliness of utilization review (UR) decisions, while Independent Medical Review (IMR) is solely for resolving medical necessity. A UR decision with material procedural defects is invalid, and in such cases, the WCAB, not IMR, will determine the medical necessity of the treatment.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewEn Banc DecisionWCAB JurisdictionProcedural DefectsMedical NecessityLabor Code Section 4610Substantial Medical EvidenceMaterial Procedural DefectsInvalid UR Decision
References
Case No. ADJ252083 (NOR 0166266) ADJ3827633 (LAO 0784953) ADJ3395707 (LAO 0784956) ADJ629194 (LAO 0849490) ADJ2985386 (LAO 0784955) ADJ2625573 (LAO 0784951)
Regular
Apr 12, 2011

CLAUDIA DYER vs. BOEING/McDONNELL DOUGLAS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CHARTIS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied CIGA's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings of industrial injuries to the applicant's knees, neck, back, shoulders, hips, hands, and ankle across multiple dates. The Board found the WCJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, specifically Dr. Nelson's well-reasoned medical opinions on causation and apportionment. CIGA's petition was also found deficient for failing to comply with procedural requirements for referencing the record. Finally, CIGA was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense due to the employer's knowledge of the injury and failure to provide notice of rights.

CIGAFremont InsuranceliquidationPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and Awardindustrial injuryaircraft mechanickneesneckback
References
Case No. ADJ9922433
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

PAUL BIXBY vs. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on alleged bias. The applicant's petition, though unverified and procedurally deficient, was treated as a disqualification request. The WCJ acknowledged inappropriate behavior and recused himself from the case, rendering the applicant's requested relief moot. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal as moot, while cautioning the applicant about future procedural compliance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ disqualificationOrder taking matter off calendarOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces Tecumbiasmootnessrecusalprocedural requirementsunverified petition
References
Case No. ADJ8255413, ADJ8255415, ADJ8255416, ADJ8684388
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

LERHONE WILLIAMS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The applicant, LeRhone Williams, filed a Petition for Disqualification seeking a new judge, alleging bias due to a factual error in a prior report and denial of an examination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, the judge's report, and the applicant's supplemental response. The WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient for lacking a sworn declaration and substantive merit, as alleged errors do not establish bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the Petition for Disqualification on both procedural and substantive grounds.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641WCJin pro peraffidavitdeclarationbiasprejudice
References
Case No. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
References
Case No. ADJ3190249 (SFO 0500553)
Regular
Mar 24, 2010

Quintella Eutsey vs. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, dismissing the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found the prior administrative law judge's order improperly limited discovery into the applicant's psychiatric injury claim. The Board rescinded the previous order, allowing further deposition to explore the applicant's full medical history relevant to her psyche claim, as this is discoverable when a psychological injury is at issue. Both parties were admonished to conduct themselves professionally during future discovery.

removalpetition for reconsiderationdiscovery disputepsyche injurydeposition testimonyright lower extremityindustrial injurypersonal lifefamily lifepast history
References
Case No. ADJ9805248
Regular
Aug 30, 2017

FRANCISCO PEREZ vs. MASSIVE PRINTS, HARTFORD/ SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's award due to questions regarding the substantiality of the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) opinion. The Board found the QME's report and deposition testimony unreliable due to an incorrect work history, inadequate examination, and potentially flawed application of disability rating guidelines. Consequently, the Board affirmed the original award but deferred issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney fees, returning the case to the WCJ for further proceedings and potentially a new medical evaluation.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAttorney FeesQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,535 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