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. ADJ4118785
Regular
Jun 29, 2010

MICHAEL LEWIS vs. REX MOORE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, CHARTIS COSTA MESA

The Appeals Board rescinded a prior award due to a due process violation. The defendant employer was denied an opportunity to rebut the assumed 4.7% annual SAWW increase used to calculate the applicant's attorney's fee. The Board returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing the defendant to present rebuttal evidence on the SAWW issue. The Board expressed no opinion on the appropriateness of the 4.7% SAWW figure itself.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityCommutationAttorney's FeeState Average Weekly Wage (SAWW)Disability Evaluation Unit (DEU)Permanent and Stationary (P\&S) dateIndemnity
References
0
Case No. ADJ4589994 (FRE 0246667)
Regular
Feb 25, 2013

DOROTHY VANDENBERG vs. KINGS COUNTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address an internally inconsistent clause in a Stipulated Award. Defendant sought to clarify the commencement date for the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) adjustment to the applicant's life pension. The Board construed the ambiguous clause, drafted by the applicant's attorney, in favor of the defendant. Consequently, the SAWW increase will commence in accordance with the *Baker v. WCAB* decision, effective January 1, 2018.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDOROTHY VANDENBERGKINGS COUNTYINNOVATIVE CLAIM SOLUTIONSINC.ADJ4589994FRE 0246667RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND ORDERSTIPULATED AWARD
References
3
Case No. MON 322663, LAO 0850418
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

DANIEL PAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found that the defendant must include projected future cost-of-living adjustments based on the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) when calculating the present value of the permanent disability award to determine attorney's fees. The Board affirmed that a 4.7% SAWW adjustment, representing a 50-year average, is a rational basis for these calculations, and the defendant's contention of speculation was unfounded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4659(c)State Average Weekly WagePresent Value of AwardCommutation of Attorney's FeesDisability Evaluation UnitAnnual Adjustments
References
1
Case No. ADJ1050422 (SAL 0104052) ADJ3107039 (SAL 0114548)
Regular
Jun 30, 2011

ESTELA LUIS vs. COMMUNITY BRIDGES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Estela Luis's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to injuries sustained from a specific knee/psyche injury and a cumulative trauma knee injury. The WCJ awarded 100% permanent disability and a lifetime pension, which the defendant sought reconsideration of. The defendant argued the wrong disability rating schedule was used, the 100% rating was unsubstantiated, apportionment was incorrect, and the SAWW increase calculation was erroneous. The Board granted reconsideration, affirming the award except for the SAWW increase calculation, which will be deferred for further proceedings.

WCABCommunity BridgesState Compensation Insurance FundEstela Luispermanent disabilityspecific industrial injurycumulative traumaCook Assistantpermanent disability rating schedulevocational rehabilitation experts
References
2
Case No. ADJ7971001
Regular
Apr 16, 2013

DARRYL OYAS vs. CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over the attorney's fees awarded in a workers' compensation claim for a 100% permanent disability award. The applicant's attorney argues the administrative law judge erred by excluding the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) adjustment factor and by using the Uniform Reduction method for commutation instead of the Uniform Increasing Reduction (UIR) method. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow the judge to recalculate the attorney's fees, incorporating a reasonable SAWW adjustment and applying the UIR commutation method, while still considering factors for determining the fee's reasonableness. The Board emphasized separating the calculation of the award's commuted value from the determination of the attorney's fee percentage.

State Compensation Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardAttorney's FeePermanent DisabilityState Average Weekly Wage (SAWW)Uniform Increasing Reduction (UIR) methodCommutationStipulations with Request for AwardCorrectional Officer
References
5
Case No. ADJ 4200496 (GRO 0030688)
Regular
Jan 19, 2010

FRANCISCO MARTINEZ-REYES vs. SOLAMAR FARMS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the proper method for calculating permanent disability award commutations for a farm laborer with 100% disability sustained on February 10, 2004. The applicant appeals the administrative law judge's decision favoring the Uniformed Reduction (UR) method, arguing the Uniformed Increasing Reduction (UIR) method better accounts for state average weekly wage (SAWW) increases mandated by Labor Code section 4659. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and remanded the case for a new decision. The Board found the UIR method better serves the goal of consistent periodic payments, and the SAWW increase commencement date was not moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUniformed Reduction (UR)Uniformed Increasing Reduction (UIR)State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW)Permanent Disability AwardCommutationLabor Code Section 4659Life PensionTotal Permanent DisabilityCost of Living Adjustment (COLA)
References
1
Case No. ADJ1146871 (SAC 0349672)
Regular
Jun 14, 2010

ZORICA ILIC vs. STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS, SEDGWICK 2065 OAKLAND

This case involves an applicant with a $78\%$ permanent disability rating for admitted industrial injuries to her low back and psyche. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the administrative law judge erred in applying a diminished future earning capacity adjustment, Labor Code $\S 4664$ apportionment, and relying on applicant's medical evaluators. The primary issue deferred was the calculation of the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) adjustment under Labor Code $\S 4659(\text{c})$ pending a Supreme Court decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the SAWW adjustment calculation but otherwise affirmed the original findings, including the $78\%$ permanent disability rating.

Labor Code § 4663Labor Code § 4664Labor Code § 4659(c)SAWWDFECDuncan v. WCABReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluators
References
2
Case No. ADJ6790437
Regular
Jun 23, 2010

CHRISTOPHER PECKHAM (Dec'd) LISA FALVO-PECKHAM (Widow) vs. RESOLUTION LAW CORP AND REPUBLIC INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA

This case concerns a widow's petition for reconsideration of death benefits for her deceased husband. The applicant argued that death benefits should be annually adjusted based on the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW), even if the decedent's actual earnings did not increase. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative judge's finding. The Board concluded that Labor Code section 4453(a)(10) only sets maximum rates and does not mandate automatic increases for death benefits beyond calculated average weekly earnings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4453(a)(10)State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW)Earning CapacityStipulated AwardApplicant TestimonyExpert TestimonyFinancial Controller Testimony
References
1
Case No. ADJ3418200 (SJO 0251518)
Regular
Oct 28, 2013

MARC ANEMONE vs. SASCO ELECTRIC, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a prior decision awarding applicant $100\%$ permanent disability and a substantial attorney fee. The defendant argued that the $100\%$ permanent disability award was legally excessive, citing *Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, and sought apportionment for psychiatric and internal injuries. The WCAB affirmed the original findings and award, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and finding the chosen commutation method for attorney fees appropriate. This method accounts for future increases in applicant's disability payments due to SAWW adjustments.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityattorney feescommutationuniformly increasing reductionstate average weekly wageSAWW adjustmentsLabor Code section 4659(c)
References
1
Case No. ADJ7831450
Regular
May 07, 2013

MARIO RESENDIZ vs. JERRY HOLLENDORFER STABLES, CHARTIS INSURANCE

This case concerns applicant Mario Resendiz's claim for 100% permanent disability following a 2008 injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award to commence permanent total disability payments on March 20, 2010, rather than December 19, 2011. The Board affirmed the finding of 100% permanent disability but returned the matter for the trial judge to recalculate the applicant's attorney's fee. This recalculation must consider a cost of living adjustment (COLA) using a "uniformly increasing reduction" method and a reasonable predicted State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) increase.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilitySpecific InjuryApportionmentSubstantial Medical EvidenceAttorney's FeeCommutationCost of Living Adjustment (COLA)
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11 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