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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ9893989
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

DAMIAN SANCHEZ vs. MICHAEL SIMMS dba SIMMS PAINTING AND DECORATING, TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the timeliness of a utilization review (UR) determination regarding a request for home health care. The defendant argued its UR denial was timely because it requested additional information, thereby extending the review period under Labor Code section 4610(g)(1). The WCJ initially found the UR determination untimely for prospective and concurrent review, but timely for retrospective review, citing a narrow interpretation of who can request further information. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found the UR denial timely. The Board held that the defendant's attorney, acting as an agent for the claims administrator, could validly request additional information, extending the UR deadline to 14 days.

Utilization ReviewRequest For AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewProspective ReviewConcurrent ReviewRetrospective ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.1Findings Of Fact And Order
References
Case No. ADJ20015360; ADJ20015361
Regular
Feb 27, 2025

PAUL ALVARADO vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a Findings and Award issued by an arbitrator on June 4, 2024, concerning applicant Paul Alvarado and defendant City of Los Angeles. The Board previously issued a Notice of Intention to rescind due to an incomplete record. Despite subsequent filings, multiple evidentiary documents remain missing, preventing a proper review of the petition. Citing due process requirements and the need for a complete record for meaningful review, the Appeals Board rescinded the original Findings and Award and returned the matter to the arbitrator for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardArbitrator's DecisionRescindedIncomplete RecordDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceEvidentiary RecordElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
Case No. ADJ6916816
Regular
Feb 05, 2013

SARAH HOAGLAND vs. COUNTY OF YUBA

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Sarah Hoagland, who was ordered to produce business records and tax returns. The Appeals Board granted her Petition for Removal, ruling that her tax returns are privileged and cannot be compelled. However, Hoagland must produce her business records, though she may seek protective orders for third-party privacy concerns or request in-camera review. Charity records were deemed outside the subpoena's scope and require a more specific demand.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumTax Records PrivilegeRevenue and Taxation Code Section 19282Webb v. Standard Oil Co.Schnabel v. Superior CourtPublic Policy ExceptionConfidential Financial InformationThird-Party Privacy RightsProtective Order
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. RDG 0115958
Significant
Nov 16, 2004

Brice Sandhagen, Applicant vs. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that the utilization review time deadlines are mandatory; if a defendant fails to meet these deadlines, any utilization review report is inadmissible, and the defendant must use the AME/QME procedure as the objecting party.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Time DeadlinesAdmissibility of EvidenceMedical Treatment RecommendationACOEM GuidelinesAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorSection 4062
References
Case No. ADJ10000461
Regular
Sep 03, 2019

MARIA SOTO vs. ATHERTON BAPTIST HOMES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimants' petition for reconsideration due to a lack of a proper trial record. The original order's retrospective utilization review of medical treatment was rescinded because the proceedings lacked essential components like stipulated issues and admitted evidence. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to establish a complete record. The Board noted potential issues regarding timely service and the applicability of utilization review to lien claimants.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUtilization ReviewRetrospective Utilization ReviewTrial RecordMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceStipulationsAdmitted EvidenceCompromise and Release
References
Case No. ADJ42252 (SBR 0302367)
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

ELAINE HACKER vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO-PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior decision by an administrative law judge (WCJ) that had remanded five Independent Medical Review (IMR) determinations for new reviews. The WCAB found that the WCJ erred in determining that the IMR reviews were invalid simply because they did not list the specific dates and authors of all reviewed medical records. The Board concluded that the IMR determinations sufficiently identified reviewed documents and that the WCJ could not substitute her own medical necessity judgment for that of the IMR. Therefore, the five IMR determinations are now considered final and binding, denying the applicant's requested medical treatments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code section 4610.6(h)IMR Determinationsplainly erroneousmedical recordssubstantial evidencemedical necessityUtilization Reviewappeals
References
Case No. ADJ6552734
Regular
Apr 02, 2015

Diane Garibay-Jimenez vs. Santa Barbara Medical Foundation Clinic, Zurich American Insurance

This case concerns a denied request for left ulnar nerve decompression surgery. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) upheld the denial, finding the applicant failed to provide necessary Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) reports to the Independent Medical Review (IMR), making a further review unreasonable. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's order. The WCAB found the defendant failed to comply with Labor Code section 4610.5(l) by not providing all relevant medical records to IMR, thus invalidating the prior IMR determination. The matter was returned for a new IMR application, holding the defendant responsible for submitting complete records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiane Garibay-JimenezSanta Barbara Medical Foundation ClinicZurich American InsuranceADJ6552734Opinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationExpedited Findings of Fact and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization Review
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,993 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