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. ADJ8595235
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

Thomas Carroll vs. Lehigh Hanson Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's initial petition for removal as procedurally improper, as it challenged a notice of intent rather than a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's supplemental petition for removal, which sought to overturn the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order closing discovery. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying the supplemental petition, especially since the WCJ left open the possibility of allowing the deposition after trial. A dissenting commissioner argued that the deposition of Dr. Dell was necessary to update his opinion and ensure a complete record for apportionment, similar to Dr. Russell's deposition.

Petition for RemovalNotice of IntentionQuash DepositionPQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureSupplemental PetitionDr. DellDr. RussellSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Local 345 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by an automobile dealership, Heinrich Motors, Inc., against a labor arbitration award concerning improper deductions from salesmen's commissions. The arbitrator found that the employer was violating the collective bargaining agreement by deducting a $25 advertising charge from gross profit before calculating commissions. The main dispute centered on the arbitrator's power to award retroactive repayment of withheld commissions back to September 1977, despite a contractual provision limiting retroactive relief to the date the grievance was filed (June 28, 1979). The court previously remitted the case, asking the arbitrator to justify exceeding the contractual limitation. In his supplemental opinion, the arbitrator found it unconscionable to apply the limitation and deprive employees of commissions withheld before June 28, 1979, citing the intent for peaceful resolution through arbitration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term's confirmation of the supplemental award, holding that the "law of the case" doctrine applies and that the arbitrator's actions were within his powers under Federal labor law. The court also modified the judgment to award interest from the date of the arbitrator's supplemental award (June 18, 1981) instead of the confirmation date (November 20, 1981).

Law of the CaseLabor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRetroactive ReliefArbitrator's PowerCommission DeductionsUnconscionabilityFederal Labor LawGrievance ProcedureInterest Award
References
24
Case No. ADJ3299212
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

LISA WEILMANN vs. UNITED TEMPORARY SERVICE, TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board opinion awards supplemental attorney's fees of $2,100.00 to applicant's counsel. This award stems from the Court of Appeal's denial of the defendant's petition for writ of review and its subsequent granting of the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801. The applicant's attorney requested this fee for six hours of work at $350 per hour, which the Board found reasonable. The award is against TIG Specialty Insurance Company.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY'S FEESLABOR CODE § 5801Court of Appealpetition for writ of reviewremittiturapplicant's attorney requestreasonable feeTIG Specialty Insurance CompanyRisk Enterprise Management
References
1
Case No. ADJ2186466
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

AMADO URIAS vs. VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

This case involves Amado Urias's petition for reconsideration of a Supplemental Findings and Award that determined his permanent disability at 54% after apportionment. Urias argued that his vocational expert's opinion on diminished earning capacity should have been prioritized over the medical opinions regarding his physical and psychiatric limitations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found that the issue of psychiatric apportionment was previously adjudicated and that the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence due to its reliance on subjective complaints over objective medical findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertDr. Albert SimpkinsDr. StewartDr. WixenDr. AhmedCumulative Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2016

Hooper v. Colvin

Plaintiff Deborah Hooper sought judicial review of a final determination by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn Colvin, denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The U.S. Magistrate Judge, James L. Cott, found the ALJ's step three disability determination supported by evidence. However, the Court ruled that the ALJ failed to fully develop the administrative record at step four by not securing a comprehensive medical assessment of Hooper's mental impairments from a treating or consultative physician. The record lacked a complete and consistent medical opinion, particularly from Hooper's primary-care physician, Dr. Anna Timell, who provided inconclusive assessments. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings to obtain necessary medical opinions and to reassess the need for a vocational expert.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeMedical OpinionFunctional LimitationsMental ImpairmentsBipolar DisorderImpulse Control Disorder
References
50
Case No. VNO 483286
Regular
Jul 16, 2007

ROBERT WALKER vs. MARSHALLS, CNA CLAIM PLUS, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding that the medical evidence regarding causation and apportionment was critically flawed. Neither the applicant's treating physician nor the defendant's QME adequately addressed these issues with sufficient reasoning and complete medical histories. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the medical record, including obtaining supplemental opinions from physicians, before a new decision is made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRobert WalkerMarshall'sCNA Claim PlusInc.Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryFoot InjuryPermanent Disability
References
17
Case No. SJO 238655 SJO 238656 SJO 238657
Regular
Apr 02, 2008

JAMES BEENE vs. ANDERSON CHEVROLET/AUTONATION, INC., ACE-USA, UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award because the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion was based on an incorrect legal theory regarding industrial causation. The Board found that the AME's opinion that the applicant's vascular condition was not industrially caused or aggravated was not substantial evidence, requiring further development of the record. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for the AME to provide a supplemental opinion on whether the vascular condition was industrially caused or a consequence of the admitted injury.

workers compensationindustrial injuryvascular systemagreed medical evaluatorAMEreconsiderationtemporary disability indemnityTDIlien claimsubrogation
References
15
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ3674520
Regular
Mar 29, 2012

Linda Elachkar vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Chartis Insurance Services

This case involves supplemental attorney's fees awarded under Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review in *Northrup Grumman Corporation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, finding no reasonable basis for the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to award supplemental attorney's fees to the applicant, Linda Elachkar. The parties stipulated to a fee of $4,812.50, which the Board found to be reasonable.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable BasisRemandAppeals BoardStipulationAttorney's FeeNorthrop Grumman CorporationChartis Insurance Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ10282606, ADJ10283736
Regular
Feb 06, 2019

DARLENE BATTLE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's previous findings and awards in both consolidated cases, ADJ10282606 and ADJ10283736. The primary issue concerned the determination of permanent disability for the applicant's right knee injury, specifically whether the medical opinion of Dr. Glousman was substantial evidence. The Board found Dr. Glousman's report lacked sufficient explanation for his impairment ratings according to AMA Guides, and the WCJ improperly supplemented this opinion. Consequently, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and new decisions by the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceApportionmentReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical OpinionCorrectional Officer
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 19,272 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