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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ9145724
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ARZAGA, JOSE vs. CROWN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an applicant seeking to select a pain management specialist outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued the MPN failed to provide a qualifying specialist within the required 15-mile/30-minute access standard for a primary treating physician. The Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's right to choose an out-of-network physician and reimbursement for investigative costs. The majority reasoned that the MPN must meet the closer access standard for a primary treating physician, even if that physician is a specialist. A dissenting opinion argued that a specialist, when chosen as a primary treating physician, should fall under the 30-mile/60-minute access standard for specialists.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNprimary treating physicianpain management specialistaccess standardAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5investigative costsLabor Code section 5703Lescallett v. Wal-MartMartinez v. New French Bakery
References
Case No. ADJ7422993
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

SHIRLEY LESCALLETT vs. WAL-MART, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, YORK RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought to select a pain management specialist as her primary treating physician. The employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) did not have any pain management specialists within the 15-mile/30-minute access standard for primary physicians, though it did have specialists within a 30-mile/60-minute radius. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that if an applicant chooses a specialist for their primary care, the MPN must provide at least three physicians of that specialty within a 15-mile/30-minute radius. Since the defendant's MPN failed to meet this standard for pain management specialists, the applicant was permitted to choose one outside the MPN. A dissenting opinion argued that the 30-mile/60-minute standard for specialists should apply, allowing the applicant to select a physician within that broader radius from the MPN.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialistAccess StandardsAdministrative Director's RulePain Management PhysicianGeographic RadiusLabor CodeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9052223
Regular
Aug 05, 2016

Joel Rodriguez Luna vs. The Home Depot, Helmsman Management

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in a maximum of four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Joel Rodriguez Luna's Petition for Removal, affirming the WCJ's finding that Home Depot's Medical Provider Network (MPN) complied with access standards. The WCJ determined that for a specialist, like an orthopedist, the MPN only needed to meet the 30-mile/60-minute access standard, not the stricter 15-mile/30-minute standard for a general primary treating physician. The Board agreed, concluding that since there was at least one orthopedic surgeon within the 30-mile radius, the MPN satisfied its obligations, despite the applicant's preference for a specialist within a closer distance. The dissenting opinion argued the MPN failed by not having at least three specialists readily available to serve as primary treating physicians for the applicant's specific orthopedic injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)Access StandardsPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialistGeographic AreaAdministrative Director's RuleLabor CodeIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8205235
Regular
Feb 06, 2013

HECTOR GOMEZ vs. FASTENAL, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns an injured worker, Hector Gomez, who sought medical treatment outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board overturned the finding that the employer lost control of medical treatment, finding that the employer's technical failure to schedule the initial MPN visit did not deny treatment. The Board also held that the worker could not select a non-MPN specialist simply because an MPN specialist declined to act as a primary treating physician. Therefore, the applicant must obtain treatment through the defendant's MPN.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Primary Treating Physician (PTP)SpecialistLabor Code section 4616.3Administrative Director's Rule 9767.6initial medical evaluationchange of physicianforfeiture of medical controlaccess standards
References
Case No. ADJ8264840
Regular
May 30, 2018

GABRIELA ARROYO vs. STANFORD UNIVERSITY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior decision that denied a psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The WCAB found that the administrative law judge improperly decided the issue of good cause to reopen, rather than the sole issue presented for trial: entitlement to a PQME in psychiatry. Granting removal was necessary due to potential prejudice and due process concerns. The Board substituted its own order, granting the applicant's request for a PQME in psychiatry.

PQMEPetition for RemovalWCABCompensable Consequence InjuryNew and Further InjuryDue ProcessGood Cause to ReopenStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ1956695 (LBO 0388842)
Regular
Mar 19, 2009

Jessica Brown vs. Retirement Housing Foundation, CNA Claims Plus, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision allowing an injured worker to receive treatment from a specialist outside her employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board clarified that an employee must treat with specialists within the MPN unless it can be demonstrated that the MPN lacks a qualified physician for the approved treatment. The employer's stipulation on weekly earnings remained unchallenged. The Board amended the original order to reflect this requirement for MPN treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEIndustrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesFood Services WorkerPrimary Treating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ7873470, ADJ9373759
Regular
Oct 23, 2015

JUAN JOSE RAMIREZ vs. LYNAM INDUSTRIES INC., COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar for a QME evaluation in psychiatry. The Board found the WCJ erred by ordering further discovery after the close of discovery, as the defendant disputed the psychiatric injury and thus Labor Code section 4061(i) did not apply. The matter was ordered to be set for trial immediately on previously delineated issues.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 4061(i)Panel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPsychiatryPre-Trial Conference StatementDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedcumulative trauma injuryspecific injuryoff calendarsubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ6627019
Regular
May 06, 2013

SANDRA BERKENSTOCK vs. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order denying their request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in psychiatry/psychology. The applicant sustained industrial injuries including to her psyche. The administrative law judge denied the replacement panel because the QME's report was eventually received. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition. The Board ruled that the denial of a replacement QME panel is an interim, procedural order not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a).

WCABAgilent TechnologiesADJ6627019Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpsychiatrypsychologyFlorence Thomas-RiddleLabor Code section 139.2(j)(1)(A)
References
Showing 1-10 of 184 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