Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ12906916

Regular

Feb 25, 2025

Celia Clara Bautista vs. Cal Central Harvesting, Inc.

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding industrial injury to the applicant in the form of uterine cancer and to the right foot. Defendant contended the WCJ erred by relying on Dr. Lonky's opinions, arguing his specialty was not relevant and he did not adequately consider exposure and latency periods. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the medical record needed further development from additional specialists (oncology, gastroenterology, orthopedics) and supplemental reporting or testimony from Dr. Lonky, thus deferring the issues of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryUterine CancerRight Foot InjuryPulmonologyToxicologyLatency PeriodPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidencePetition for Reconsideration

References

Case No. ADJ11028821

Regular

Nov 01, 2019

Elizabeth Iniguez vs. City and County of San Francisco

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant whose claim for industrial injury to her right eye was denied. The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing the administrative law judge erred in their finding. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The Board found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, particularly regarding the causal relationship between her work environment and eye impairment, despite being alerted to the need for further development of evidence. Therefore, the applicant takes nothing by way of her claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryRight EyeCumulative InjuryAdministrative Law JudgeFindings of FactBurden of ProofAgreed Medical EvaluatorOphthalmologist

References

Case No. ADJ18210611

Regular

May 08, 2025

ELENITA JOVER vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Elenita Jover, a licensed vocational nurse, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award that denied her request for additional Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) panels. The initial F&A found injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine, shoulders, and right thumb, but not to other claimed body parts like stress, psyche, or internal systems. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the original F&A, and ordered additional QME panels for pulmonology, internal medicine (diabetes), ophthalmology, ENT, and neurology, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was based on the original QME's recommendation for further evaluations and the need to develop the evidentiary record to ensure substantial justice.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluationLicensed Vocational NurseArising out of and in the course of employmentPermanent DisabilityDue ProcessPulmonologistInternistOphthalmologistOtolaryngologist

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Celia Clara Bautista vs. Cal Central Harvesting, Inc.

Elizabeth Iniguez vs. City and County of San Francisco

ELENITA JOVER vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH