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. ADJ9312112
Regular
Apr 17, 2017

CUONG PHAN vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant City of Santa Clara's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld a prior finding that applicant Cuong Phan sustained industrial injuries to his lower back, resulting in 29% permanent disability. The key issue was the application of the "duty belt presumption" under Labor Code section 3213.2, which presumes lower back impairments in long-term peace officers required to wear duty belts arise from employment. The Board found the presumption applicable and not rebutted, deeming it a legislative intent to protect officers with these specific conditions.

Duty belt presumptionLabor Code section 3213.2police officerlower back impairmentpeace officerpermanent disabilityjoint findings and awardpetition for reconsiderationBenson apportionmentLabor Code section 4663(e)
References
3
Case No. ADJ18940959
Regular
Apr 18, 2025

RON IGLESIAS vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Applicant Ron Iglesias claimed cumulative work injuries to his bladder, psyche, and diabetes, which the defendant, County of Santa Clara, contended were barred by the statute of limitations. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found no evidence of applicant's knowledge of industrial causation and thus could not establish a date of injury or determine if the claim was time-barred. The defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing applicant failed reasonable diligence and would cause significant prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the need for further discovery to establish the injury date and noting that potential discovery costs are not grounds for removal.

Labor Code section 5412cumulative work injurystatute of limitationsdate of injurypetition for reconsiderationremoval standardsignificant prejudiceirreparable harmaffirmative defenseburden of proof
References
28
Case No. ADJ9538234
Regular
Dec 22, 2014

STEPHANIE REINHARDT vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Stephanie Reinhardt's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in its decision. Additionally, a supplemental petition submitted by the County of Santa Clara was not accepted or considered by the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportSupplemental PetitionCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10848WCAB RulesDeniedCounty of Santa Clara District Attorney
References
0
Case No. ADJ6761550 ADJ6761551
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

JUAN SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA; PSI, administered by CAMBRIDGE

This case summary is for lawyer Juan Sanchez, who is seeking reconsideration from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concerning his claims against the City of Santa Clara and PSI, administered by Cambridge. The WCAB has granted Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration, indicating that the initial decision warrants further review. Pending the final decision after reconsideration, all case-related communications must be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners in San Francisco, rather than any local office. The specific claims and underlying facts leading to this reconsideration are not detailed in this excerpt.

Petition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersSan Francisco District OfficeADJ6761550ADJ6761551City of Santa ClaraPSI
References
0
Case No. ADJ9580180
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

SARAH SCOFIELD vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by AIMS

This order denies Sarah Scofield's petitions for reconsideration in her workers' compensation case against Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in its decision. Therefore, the petitions for reconsideration are denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdenialADJ9580180Santa Clara County Superior CourtPermissibly Self-InsuredAIMSSarah ScofieldSan Jose District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ9567245
Regular
Apr 01, 2016

JASON SUMMERS vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority regarding a psychological injury claim sustained by applicant Jason Summers. The petitioner argued the applicant was the initial physical aggressor, barring his claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's finding that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof. The WCJ's credibility determination, favoring a neutral witness over conflicting applicant and co-worker testimony, was central to this decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardPsyche injuryTemporary disabilityInitial physical aggressorLabor Code section 3600(a)(7)Burden of proofWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. ADJ6761550, ADJ6761551
Regular
Dec 14, 2010

JUAN SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By CAMBRIDGE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding applicant Juan Sanchez totally and permanently disabled. This disability stemmed from a combination of industrial injuries, including a stroke, which qualified for a conclusive presumption of total disability under Labor Code section 4662(d). The defendant City of Santa Clara had argued for apportionment of this disability based on prior awards and the distinct nature of the current injuries. However, the Board found that the conclusive presumption of total disability under section 4662 precluded apportionment. The concurring opinion agreed with the outcome but differed on the strict interpretation of unapportionability, asserting that apportionment might be possible in other section 4662 cases if properly proven.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundCity of Santa Clarapermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662incurable mental incapacitystrokecumulative injuryspecific injuryapportionment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2001

Adams v. Santa Fe Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, order denying the Santa Fe defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars was unanimously affirmed. The denial of summary judgment was due to unresolved questions of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was a special employee of the Santa Fe defendants, thus precluding the application of the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule. Evidence suggested shared supervision and control over the construction site between the Santa Fe defendants and the plaintiff's general employer. The court also found that the supplemental bill of particulars merely amplified existing allegations under Labor Law § 241 (6) by citing specific Industrial Code chapter headings, and did not introduce new theories of liability, thus affirming its grant.

special employeeWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Lawsummary judgmentbill of particularsIndustrial Codeshared supervisionconstruction siteappellate affirmance
References
3
Case No. ADJ4313424 (SJO 0269593)
Regular
Jul 13, 2011

SUSAN GRACE vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order that allowed the applicant to obtain expert evidence on the "Ogilvie" issue after the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in identifying and retaining an expert witness for this issue prior to the MSC. Consequently, discovery was closed as of the MSC date, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Ogilvie evidenceGrupe casePetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)due diligencePermanent Disability Rating ScheduleDREC adjustment factorWCJAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. SJO 0261668
Regular
Aug 18, 2008

MARI J. MOLLO vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, aka SANTA CLARA-JBWCP, PSI, adjusted by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the trial judge's permanent disability rating was not supported by substantial evidence. The primary issue was the rating of the applicant's grip strength loss, which the agreed medical evaluator stated could not be rated under the AMA Guides due to certain conditions. The Board amended the award to defer the issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees, returning the matter to the trial level for further development of the record. This includes obtaining a supplemental report from the medical evaluator to clarify rating issues and thoroughly address the applicant's activities of daily living.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesGrip StrengthActivities of Daily LivingWhole Person ImpairmentDeposition Testimony
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 398 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