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
Case No. ADJ3080176 (LAO 0871214)
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

ROSS ISAACS vs. DOUG APATOW AGENCY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's order allowing the deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Berman. Defendant argued the deposition was improper because Dr. Berman's prior reports were stricken from the record. However, the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the order permitted further record development. The Board clarified that even if Dr. Berman's reports were considered stricken, the WCJ could still develop the record by seeking supplemental information from the AME.

Removal petitionAgreed Medical EvaluatorOtorhinolaryngologyMinute OrderPetition to StrikeOrder Taking Case Off CalendarSupplemental medical reportsDepositionSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ6640151
Regular
May 12, 2011

CHERYL CIENFUEGOS vs. FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding an order compelling the applicant to see a second Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Dao. The Board found that the applicant was not entitled to a second QME solely due to a delay in scheduling a supplemental examination with the first QME, Dr. Chiu. The Board reasoned that administrative rules regarding QME availability do not apply to supplemental evaluations. Consequently, the applicant must attend the rescheduled examination with Dr. Chiu.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel QMELabor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2Industrial injuryNeckShouldersUpper extremitiesPsycheAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ4522362
Regular
Sep 26, 2008

CELESTE LILJEBLAD-THOMAS vs. BARONE'S RESTAURANT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB reversed the Supplemental Findings and Award granting reconsideration to the defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund. The WCJ lacked jurisdiction to award temporary disability more than five years after the injury date.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCeleste Liljeblad-ThomasBarone's RestaurantState Compensation Insurance FundSupplemental Findings and Awardtemporary disability indemnityactual earnings25% penaltiesfurther medical treatmentreimbursement for mileage
References
Case No. MON 254928
Significant
Feb 25, 2002

James McDuffie, Applicant vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Permissibly Self-Insured, c/o Constitution State Service Company

The Board holds that where the medical record requires further development after trial, the preferred procedure is to first seek supplemental opinions from the physicians who have already reported in the case before considering the appointment of a new medical examiner.

En Banc DecisionMedical Record DevelopmentSupplemental OpinionsAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Court Appointed Medical EvaluatorFurther DevelopmentApportionmentPermanent DisabilityBus Operator
References
Case No. ADJ9845740
Regular
Dec 18, 2019

RICHARD OKUNIEWICZ vs. CHRISTOFFERSON TRANSPORTATION, QBE-PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an employer's petition for removal challenging a judge's order denying a motion to compel an in-person vocational evaluation. The Appeals Board denied the petition, treating it as a reconsideration request because the underlying order resolved threshold issues. Although the decision was final regarding threshold matters, the Board reviewed the discovery dispute under the extraordinary removal standard. The majority found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying the in-person evaluation, as a remote evaluation was deemed sufficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderMedical-Legal EvaluationCompelSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueVocational Evaluation
References
Case No. ADJ2182506 (SFO 0470932)
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

LARRY CHIAPPELLONE vs. NORCAL/GOLDEN GATE DISPOSAL and RECYCLING COMPANY, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case involved a defendant's petition for removal seeking a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to alleged delays. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that Labor Code section 4062.5 and related regulations do not mandate a new QME for untimely supplemental reports. Specifically, regulations address timeframes for initial evaluations, not supplemental ones, and the failure to meet supplemental report deadlines does not necessitate a new QME. Therefore, the WCJ's denial of the defendant's motion was not an abuse of discretion.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportRegulatory TimeframesLabor Code Section 4062.5Administrative Director Rule 38(h)WCJ DiscretionNew Panel QMEMedical Evaluation ProcessReappointment Grounds
References
Case No. ADJ8836050
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

EDUARDO CASTILLO vs. GENERAL MOTORS; permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's orders appointing new orthopedic and psychiatric evaluators. The Board found the WCJ erred by directly appointing new physicians without first attempting to supplement existing medical reports or deposing prior evaluators, as per the *McDuffie* precedent. The Board determined the existing medical reports were not "fatally flawed" and directed the parties to pursue supplemental opinions or depositions before appointing new evaluators.

WCABPetition for RemovalOrdersMedical Record DevelopmentPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportsDepositionsPrejudiceDelay
References
Case No. ADJ3616179 (SFO 0504239) ADJ1586718 (SFO 0504240)
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

XOCHITL ABARCA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration and denied the Petition for Removal. The Board found the underlying decision was an interlocutory procedural order and therefore not a final decision eligible for reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant the extraordinary remedy of removal. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that good cause existed for the Agreed Medical Evaluator's delay in submitting a supplemental report due to personal health issues and a family emergency.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedyIrreparable HarmAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)
References
Case No. ADJ9011624
Regular
Dec 13, 2019

ELISHA HARDEN vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns whether specific medical reports obtained for a disability retirement claim are admissible in a workers' compensation proceeding. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior ruling, holding these reports are relevant and may be provided to the orthopedic Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) and psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found the reports relevant to the medical issues, even though they were not obtained through the standard workers' compensation medical-legal evaluation process. Consequently, the applicant's objection to providing these reports to the evaluators was overruled.

RemovalReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical-legal evaluatorsMedical recordsLabor CodeFindings and Orders (F&O)Disability retirementPermanent impairment
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,008 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