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. ADJ10007434
Regular
Sep 23, 2016

RUSSELL RASMUSSEN vs. CITY OF PETALUMA, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for a carotid pseudoaneurysm, which the original judge found work-related based on a QME's opinion. The employer sought reconsideration, arguing the QME's opinion lacked substantial evidence as it was speculative and not based on a history of trauma. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the QME's opinion impermissibly speculative. Ultimately, the Board amended the award to exclude the pseudoaneurysm as an industrial injury, reducing the permanent disability award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of PetalumaRussell RasmussenIndustrial cumulative traumaCardiac palpitationsCarotid pseudoaneurysmBattalion ChiefQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial medical evidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ1142998 (RDG 0118288)
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had previously rescinded a finding that avascular necrosis was not a compensable consequence of the applicant's injury, finding the relied-upon medical opinion speculative. The defendant argues the WCJ correctly favored the opinion of Dr. Glancz over Dr. Barber. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reaffirming that Dr. Glancz's opinion was not substantial evidence due to repeated questioning of the injury mechanism, while Dr. Barber's opinion was persuasive and based on a complete history. Therefore, the WCAB maintained its prior decision that Dr. Barber's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequencesubstantial evidencemedical opinionworkers' compensation administrative law judgereconsiderationfindings and ordermedical treatmentindustrial basissubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ1337074 (GRO 0034564) ADJ1286218 (GRO 0034565)
Regular
Jun 24, 2009

Dave Gerletti vs. SANTA MARIA AIRPORT DISTRICT, GREGORY BRAGG STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dave Gerletti's petition for reconsideration of an award for a cumulative trauma injury to his cervical spine and lungs. The original award found 35% permanent disability, apportioning 50% of the cervical spine disability to non-industrial factors based on a Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion of degenerative changes. The majority affirmed the WCJ's reliance on this opinion, finding it adequately explained. A dissenting opinion argued the QME's apportionment was speculative and improperly based on age and genetics, recommending an unapportioned award for the cervical spine injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative traumacervical spinelungspermanent disabilityapportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical Examinerarthritic degenerationnon-industrial factors
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramos v. Howard Industries, Inc.

This is a dissenting opinion in a products liability action concerning a transformer explosion, where the defendant, Howard Industries, Inc., moved for summary judgment. The central issue is the defendant's entitlement to summary judgment when the allegedly defective product was unavailable for inspection or testing. The dissenting judge argues that the defendant's expert evidence, which speculates on alternative causes while admitting the inability to prove a manufacturing defect without the product, is insufficient to meet their burden for summary judgment. The dissent distinguishes this case from Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co. by highlighting the unique disadvantage faced by the plaintiff due to the product's unavailability in rebutting speculative theories. Therefore, the dissenting judge believes the Appellate Division's decision that the defendant failed to meet its burden should have been upheld, rather than reversed by the majority.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyProduct UnavailabilityCausationManufacturing DefectDissenting OpinionEvidentiary BurdenAppellate ReviewTrial Procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucker v. City of Plattsburgh Fire Department

Justice Egan Jr. dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Board abused its discretion in characterizing the medical expert's proof as speculative. The dissent focuses on the expert opinion of Michael Lax, who found a probable causal connection between the claimant's occupation as a firefighter, his exposure to carcinogenic materials, and his diagnosed prostate cancer. Lax's opinion was based on the claimant's 24 years of exposure, absence of other prostate cancer risk factors, and epidemiological studies. The dissent emphasizes that medical opinions do not require absolute certainty, only a reasonable probability supported by a rational basis. The dissent notes that at various administrative stages, a causal relationship was found, highlighting the lack of unanimity in the final Board decision.

Prostate CancerFirefighterCausal ConnectionMedical Expert OpinionSpeculative ProofWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational ExposureCarcinogenic MaterialsDissenting OpinionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. ADJ7791984
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

PATRICK VIDAL vs. NESTLE WATERS INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies both applicant and defendant's petitions for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding of $33\%$ permanent disability after apportionment, finding the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion on apportionment was based on expertise and constituted substantial evidence. The Board rejected defendant's claim that surgery was not medically necessary and thus not compensable. One Commissioner dissented on the apportionment issue, arguing the AME's opinion was speculative and lacked sufficient explanation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatrick VidalNestle Waters Inc.ACE American Insurance Companypermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Calderonesubstantial evidencespeculative
References
3
Case No. ADJ8000726
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

KONG CHREA vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIOS

Defendant Warner Brothers Studios sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision awarding applicant Kong Chrea 77% permanent disability. The defendant argued the assigned permanent disability rating was not supported by substantial medical evidence under Almaraz/Guzman and that the applicant failed to prove his psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by his physical injury. The Board denied reconsideration, finding Dr. Sobol's report provided adequate justification for the rating and that Dr. O'Brien's opinion supported the psychiatric injury finding. A dissenting opinion argued Dr. Sobol's rating was impermissibly based on work function and speculative calculations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability RatingAlmaraz/GuzmanSubstantial Medical EvidencePsyche InjuryPredominant CauseAMA GuidesFunctional CapacityAlternative RatingDisability Schedules
References
3
Case No. ADJ2591770 (LBO 0345670)
Regular
Oct 24, 2008

RACHEL JENNINGS vs. THE SUTTON PLACE HOTEL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior finding of 100% permanent disability, attributing 60% permanent disability after apportionment. This decision followed the opinion of an Agreed Medical Evaluator who concluded 40% of the applicant's disability was due to prior causes, such as a diving accident and subsequent surgeries. The Board found the AME's apportionment opinion, based on medical history and expertise, constituted substantial evidence and was not speculative.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Spinal FusionLumbar SpineCervical SpineDegenerative Disc DiseaseRadiculitis Lumbosacral
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

United States v. Nesbeth

Chevelle Nesbeth was convicted by a jury for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. Senior District Judge Block rendered a non-incarceratory sentence of one-year probation, with special conditions including six months' home confinement and 100 hours of community service. The judge wrote this opinion to emphasize the importance of considering the numerous statutory and regulatory collateral consequences facing Nesbeth as a convicted felon, such as restrictions on employment, housing, and voting. These consequences were extensively balanced against 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to determine a just punishment. The opinion advocates for legal counsel and the Probation Department to proactively address collateral consequences in all future pre-sentence reports and sentencing proceedings.

Collateral ConsequencesSentencing ReformCriminal JusticeProbationary SentenceDrug Trafficking OffensesFelony ConvictionJudicial DiscretionFederal Sentencing GuidelinesRehabilitationRecidivism
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizzo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Kathleen Pizzo appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final determination denying her disability insurance benefits. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which had assigned no weight to the treating physician's opinion and significant weight to a consulting physician's report. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion, not adequately developing the administrative record to obtain missing medical notes, and giving undue weight to the consulting physician's report which did not explicitly support the capacity for sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the District Court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical EvidenceRemandSubstantial EvidenceRecord Development
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 18,972 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