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. ADJ8595258
Regular
Jul 21, 2015

DANNY KENZY vs. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

This case concerns a defendant's Petition for Removal of an order closing discovery. The defendant argued the order, which prohibited the use of subrosa evidence at depositions of the applicant's vocational expert and PQME, denied them due process and irreparably harmed their ability to rebut the applicant's claim of 100% permanent and total disability. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the defendant acted with due diligence in obtaining and disclosing the subrosa evidence. The Board amended the order to permit the defendant to use the subrosa evidence during these depositions, deeming it crucial for rebuttal.

RemovalPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceOrder Closing DiscoveryDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmVocational ExpertPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQME
References
0
Case No. ADJ15999814, ADJ16759614
Regular
Jun 24, 2025

JOSE GAMBOA vs. SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC.; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendants, Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. and Sedgwick. The petition challenged Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating, the exclusion of subrosa video evidence, and apportionment opinions. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the petition was timely acted upon and that defendant's arguments lacked foundation or substantial medical evidence. The WCJ's decision was ultimately supported by substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemSubrosa videoImpeachmentMedical evidenceFunctional capacity evaluationAlmaraz/Guzman analysisSubstantial medical evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ15306840
Regular
May 27, 2025

RUBEN PEDROZA vs. OC JONES & SONS, INC.; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Ruben Pedroza sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Order (F&O) that denied his claim for industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ erred by relying on a QME's summary of unadmitted subrosa video for credibility findings and identified an unaddressed conflict of interest regarding the QME. The Board determined that applicant's corrected statements about his work history did not significantly undermine his credibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorSubrosa VideoIndustrial InjuryCausationAOE/COELabor CodeMedical EvidenceConflict of Interest
References
0
Case No. ADJ9473601
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

BRIAN JONES vs. ARS INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the order under review was a discovery ruling, not a final order. Furthermore, the Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding it lacked specific legal support and failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board noted that the admissibility of the subrosa video can be addressed at later evidentiary hearings. Additionally, the applicant's non-attorney representative's status and eligibility for fees remain unclear under current regulations.

Subrosa videoPetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalDiscovery orderFinal orderDue processRight to privacyWCJPQMELabor Code section 5900
References
9
Case No. ADJ10161297
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

LUIS CHAVEZ vs. SYSCO, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ found the applicant not to be a credible witness, largely due to discrepancies between his reported limitations and observed activities in subrosa video evidence. Consequently, the WCJ determined that the applicant failed to prove his injury arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment (AOE/COE). The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationSubrosa VideoAOE/COERange of MotionAMA GuidelinesSubstantial Medical EvidenceCausationModified Work
References
9
Case No. ADJ1850137
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

CARMEN GARCIA vs. MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's decision that found no permanent disability. The applicant argued the judge improperly relied on Dr. Cook's medical reports, which she claimed lacked substantial evidence and admissibility. However, the Board adopted the judge's report, emphasizing the weight given to credibility findings and noting that Dr. Cook's reports were supported by other physicians' findings and subrosa video evidence. This video demonstrably challenged the applicant's claims of limitations, contradicting her testimony about needing wrist supports for routine activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMission Hospital Regional Medical CenterSedgwick CMSReconsiderationLabor Code section 5313Smales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.CredibilitySupplemental PetitionSummary of Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-6 of 6 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