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. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 29, 2012

House v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Sheryl L. House sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability insurance benefits application. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that the Administrative Law Judge's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Plaintiff's similar motion. The District Judge adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thus upholding the denial of disability benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician's RuleMedical-Vocational GuidelinesCredibility AssessmentPhysical ImpairmentsJudicial ReviewMotion for Judgment on Pleadings
References
54
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Hamilton v. Colvin

Plaintiff William Hamilton applied for Social Security disability benefits, which were denied by the Commissioner. Hamilton sought judicial review of this decision in federal court. Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report and Recommendation, suggesting the court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the case for further proceedings due to errors in evaluating severe impairments, credibility, and the use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Senior District Judge Scullin accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, granting Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Defendant's, and reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits. The case was remanded for reconsideration of Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome, other alleged severe impairments, and the credibility determination.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility determinationVocational expertRemand
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ9466180
Regular
Sep 28, 2017

Erin Inman vs. VENTURA REGIONAL SANITATION DISTRICT

The applicant, Erin Inman, seeks reconsideration of a prior award finding 73% permanent disability due to a cumulative trauma injury to her left wrist resulting in reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). She contends she is totally disabled, citing the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) Dr. Sohn's opinion that she cannot use either hand and is therefore conclusively presumed totally disabled under Labor Code section 4662(a). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the medical record. The Board found Dr. Sohn's opinion on total disability was not yet definitive as he repeatedly recommended a pain management evaluation and reserved judgment pending its outcome. Therefore, the determination of permanent disability and attorney fees is deferred pending a pain management evaluation and subsequent opinion from the AME.

Reflex Sympathetic DystrophyCumulative TraumaPermanent Total DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerPain Management PhysicianBody Parts AffectedLabor Code Section 4662Permanent Disability RatingMedical Record DevelopmentPetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sacks v. Gandhi Engineering, Inc.

The case involves plaintiff Farrell Sacks' employment discrimination claims against Gandhi Engineering, Inc., based on religion, age, and perceived disability following his termination. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation on August 23, 2013, advising partial grant and partial denial of the defendant's summary judgment motion. District Judge Deborah A. Batts adopted this Report and Recommendation after reviewing defendant's objections. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted for the religion and age discrimination claims but denied for the disability discrimination claim. The case will proceed to trial on the perceived disability discrimination claim.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Title VII of the Civil Rights ActSummary JudgmentReport and RecommendationPerceived DisabilityMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2009

Corson v. Astrue

This case involves an appeal of the Commissioner's decision to deny Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits to Arnell M. Corson. Plaintiff Corson suffers from chronic neck and back discomfort and depression. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, finding that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that Corson retained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of unskilled sedentary work, despite her impairments, and was therefore not disabled.

Social Security DisabilitySSDI Benefits AppealFunctional CapacitySedentary WorkAffective DisorderDegenerative Disc DiseaseChronic PainResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law Judge DecisionTreating Physician Rule
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Barbara E. Martin filed an action under the Employees’ Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA), alleging wrongful denial of total and permanent disability benefits by her former employer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, who recommended granting DuPont's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. District Judge Arcara, upon a de novo review, adopted the proposed findings. The court determined that DuPont's denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as Martin failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a total and permanent disability as defined by the Plan, particularly regarding her condition immediately prior to termination. Consequently, DuPont's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewTotal and Permanent DisabilityMedical EvidenceRotator Cuff InjuryImpingement SyndromeChronic Tendinitis
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2010

Campbell v. Astrue

Bruce Campbell (Plaintiff) filed an action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini issued a Report-Recommendation, which Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue adopted. The case involves a claimant's disability determination, focusing on his alleged illiteracy, residual functional capacity (RFC), mental impairments, and obesity. The court identified several deficiencies in the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, including an unsupported finding regarding the plaintiff's education level, a potentially flawed RFC assessment due to reliance on a non-medical opinion, and a failure to consider a reviewing psychologist's opinion on mental impairments. Consequently, the court remanded the Commissioner's decision for further proceedings to properly develop the record on the plaintiff's literacy, reconsider the RFC, and re-evaluate his mental impairments.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsResidual Functional CapacityIlliteracyMental ImpairmentsObesityVocational FactorsMedical-Vocational RulesAdministrative Law Judge
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2014

Rivera ex rel. S.M.H. v. Colvin

Plaintiff Carmen Rivera, on behalf of her daughter S.M.H., sought federal judicial review of a Social Security Administration decision denying Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis recommended granting Rivera's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion, finding S.M.H. met the disability requirements. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding S.M.H. had 'less than marked limitation' in interacting and relating with others, despite substantial evidence of behavioral and social difficulties. The District Court, presided over by Judge Colleen McMahon, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion, denying the defendant's motion, and remanding the case for the sole purpose of calculating benefits. The court found that the record persuasively demonstrated S.M.H.'s disability due to marked limitations in at least two functional domains and potentially meeting the mental retardation listing.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Childhood DisabilityLearning DisabilityADHDMood DisorderDisruptive Behavior DisorderFunctional LimitationsMarked LimitationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Review
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 8,862 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