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
1
Case No. ADJ9639477, ADJ10028768
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

LEONIDAS HIDALGO vs. AKOP DIGITAL COPIER, INC., COPIER EXPO, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION, STARR INSURANCE COMPANY (ILLINOIS MIDWEST MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE)

This case involves a dispute over whether the applicant sustained a specific or cumulative injury in 2013. The Appeals Board rescinded the Arbitrator's decision, finding the medical evidence regarding the injury's mechanism to be deficient and inconsistent. Specifically, the medical opinions on whether the injury was due to a single incident or repetitive activities were inconclusive. The matter is therefore returned to the trial level for further development of the medical record.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryAgreed medical evaluator (AME)Qualified medical evaluator (PQME)ContributionApportionmentMechanism of injurySubstantial evidenceFindings and Order (F&O)Report and Recommendation on Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2002

Claim of Ostuni v. Town of Ramapo

Claimant appealed from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 22, 2002, which denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of a prior decision. The prior decision had ruled that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury, citing insufficient credible evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, finding that the Board fully considered all evidence and no new, previously unavailable evidence was offered to warrant altering its decision. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s September 2001 decision that claimant’s injuries were not compensable, as her recurring lower back pain stemmed from injuries predating or following the alleged November 1990 incident, rather than the incident itself. The court also upheld the Board's rejection of contrary testimony as not credible.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryWork-Related InjuryReconsiderationBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
5
Case No. ADJ9500046
Regular
Jun 26, 2025

NADINA WARE vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award, where the WCJ found applicant Nadina Ware's combined injuries resulted in permanent total disability and eligibility for SIBTF benefits. SIBTF contended the findings lacked specific detail on eligibility requirements, insufficient contemporaneous evidence of prior disability, and that medical and vocational reports were not substantial evidence. The Appeals Board rescinded the decision, finding the Amended Findings and Award lacked specific findings and explanation for the conclusion of permanent total disability, and that the medical examiners did not adequately assign Whole Person Impairment (WPI) for all pre-existing conditions. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPermanent Total DisabilityPre-existing DisabilitiesApportionmentWhole Person ImpairmentWPIAMA GuidesSubstantial Medical EvidenceVocational Consultant
References
7
Case No. ADJ2651648 (MON 0342704)
Regular
Jul 18, 2017

TERESA SANCHEZ vs. HAWTHORNE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of an award granting applicant benefits for a 2006 industrial injury, arguing the prior disability rating was insufficient. The applicant had two industrial injuries: a 1997-2002 cumulative trauma and the 2006 specific injury, both causing fibromyalgia. The WCJ found the combined disability from both injuries exceeded the threshold for SIBTF benefits, based on her primary treating physician's rating. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, adopting the judge's report which found the applicant met the criteria for SIBTF benefits, and denied the SIBTF's petition.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFcumulative traumacompensable consequencefibromyalgiapermanent and stationaryAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA Guides1997 rating scheduleprimary treating physician
References
0
Case No. SAC 0350983
Regular
Jan 18, 2008

MICHAEL A. ADAIR vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CDCR-FOLSOM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a correctional officer's claim for psychological injury stemming from workplace incidents. The defendant contested the finding of injury, arguing specific events were good-faith actions by supervisors. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the incidents were not lawful, nondiscriminatory, good-faith actions. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony and the inadequacy of investigations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedPsychiatric InjuryCorrectional OfficerDepartment of Corrections and RehabilitationFolsom PrisonState Compensation Insurance FundLabor Code Section 3208.3Good Faith Personal ActionsSkelley Hearing
References
3
Case No. ADJ8023073
Regular
Mar 08, 2018

ERIKA GOMEZ GONZALEZ vs. FRONT PORCH, permissibly self-insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the prior award finding industrial injury, including to the psyche and sexual dysfunction, stemming from an exploding electrical outlet. The Board affirmed the award, specifically ruling that the exploding outlet constituted a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" exempting the applicant from the six-month employment rule for psychiatric injuries. However, the Board rescinded the specific EDD reimbursement amount and remanded that issue for further proceedings. A dissenting commissioner argued the incident was routine and the sexual dysfunction lacked objective evidence.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysexual dysfunctionEmployment Development Department (EDD) reimbursementsubstantial evidencemedical opiniondioxine electrical outlettemporary disability indemnitypermanent disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ10159316
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

Rowdy Rushing vs. Foster Farms

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that Rowdy Rushing did not sustain a left shoulder injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment with Foster Farms. The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant's testimony regarding a pallet striking his arm not credible, noting inconsistencies with coworker statements and medical reports. Specifically, the applicant's account of the incident and the mechanism of injury was deemed unlikely and not supported by Dr. Ozaeta's medical opinion, which concluded the MRI findings were inconsistent with the described incident. Therefore, the Board affirmed the judge's take-nothing order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFoster FarmsRowdy RushingFindings and OrderTake nothing orderIndustrial injuryLeft shoulderOctober 92015Taper/packer
References
0
Case No. ADJ7464284
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

MIGUEL ANGEL GARCIA vs. INTERNATIONAL WINDOW, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding that Miguel Angel Garcia sustained industrial injuries to his back, neck, shoulders, and arms from cumulative trauma and a specific incident while employed by International Window. The Board found Dr. Donohue's medical reports constituted substantial evidence supporting the cumulative trauma finding and ongoing temporary disability. The Board also ruled that Garcia was permitted to select a new primary treating physician for his cumulative trauma claim, as he had not been properly notified of his prior physician's final determination for the specific injury. The defendant's contentions regarding lack of medical evidence, ongoing temporary disability, and improper physician selection were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseMedical EvidencePrimary Treating PhysicianDispute Resolution ProceduresFindings Award and Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kwintner v. Madamoiselle Personnel

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from November 15, 2001, which found she did not sustain a compensable injury following a mental breakdown attributed to her employer's "verbal tirade" on April 18, 1996. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) closed the case due to claimant's failure to provide prima facie medical evidence of a causally related psychiatric injury. The Board upheld this decision, declining to consider a psychiatrist's report submitted during the appeal due to lack of timely submission and insufficient explanation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that while extensive medical documentation existed, it failed to establish a causal link between the psychiatric condition and the work incident. The court also found the belated psychiatrist's report did not specifically connect the condition to the alleged incident.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPsychiatric InjuryCausal RelationshipPrima Facie Medical EvidenceHostile Work EnvironmentAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionEvidence SubmissionAffirmed DecisionMental Breakdown
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 15,673 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