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. ADJ588686 (SDO 0309857) ADJ2275487 (SDO 0311854) ADJ1079800 (SDO 0309856)
Regular
Mar 12, 2014

GRAZYNA KOZAK vs. QUIDEL CORPORATION, CNA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision. The Board found the defense exhibits, including surveillance videos and vocational expert reports, were properly admitted. They also upheld the use of the AMA schedule for permanent disability, finding the applicant's earlier reports did not qualify for the prior rating schedule. Finally, the Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings regarding the applicant and found the opinions of some expert witnesses to be unsubstantial.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility findingvocational expert reportssubrosa filmscustodian of recordspermanent disability rating schedulePDRSpermanent and stationary statussubstantial evidence
References
Case No. ADJ1479326 (ANA 0411799) ADJ7233578
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

JONATHAN DUONG vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned a WCJ's decision to exclude sub rosa surveillance video. The Board found no legal basis for excluding the video obtained in a mobile home park parking lot and a grocery store, as the applicant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those public areas. The Board determined that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice from the exclusion, justifying removal of the case. Therefore, the sub rosa video was ruled admissible and may be provided to medical evaluators.

Sub rosa videoremovalreconsiderationadmissibilityinvasion of privacyreasonable expectation of privacycivil liabilityworkers' compensation fraudmedical-legal evaluatorworkers' compensation appeals board
References
Case No. ADJ9070509
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

GIHAN MOSAAD vs. WALMART STORES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case concerns the admissibility of store surveillance video footage from the applicant's date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board agreed with the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a future decision proves adverse. The WCJ determined the video was relevant to the nature, extent, and apportionment of the applicant's injury, noting it shows the applicant using a cane and stocking shelves before being removed on a stretcher. The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal was necessary before a final decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmissibility of VideoStore Surveillance VideoDate of InjuryWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings & Order
References
Case No. ADJ769451 (MON 0236205)
Regular
Apr 01, 2010

CLEMI BOUBLI vs. CAST & CREW PAYROLL, CNA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the WCJ struck an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) report and closed discovery. The AME reviewed surveillance videos suggesting the applicant's reported disability was feigned or exaggerated, recommending further evaluation. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding disputes regarding video admissibility require resolution at the trial level. The matter is returned for the WCJ to determine video admissibility and decide on further medical evaluations.

RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorSurveillance VideoExaggerated DisabilityNeuropsychological EvaluationUnfair DecisionAdmissible EvidenceEvidentiary RulingsReconsiderationTrial Level Proceedings
References
Case No. ADJ3787731 (OAK 0332481)
Regular
Oct 17, 2008

LINDA ALCUTT vs. VOLT SERVICES GROUP, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Board granted reconsideration to allow the WCJ to consider surveillance videos and the medical reports of Dr. Morris, which were initially excluded. The WCJ erred by not admitting Dr. Morris' reports, who opined the applicant's condition was permanent and stationary, and by failing to discuss the surveillance evidence. The case is remanded for further proceedings to admit Dr. Morris' reports and consider all evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianSub Rosa InvestigationMedical ReportsLabor Code § 4062Admissibility of Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ9571390
Regular
Mar 28, 2023

CALEB JONES vs. COUNTY OF MARIN, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) award. The applicant challenged the exclusion of surveillance video evidence and the reliance on medical reports based on that video. Ultimately, the parties participated in a settlement conference and reached a compromise and release agreement. The WCAB approved this settlement, rescinding the prior award and ordering that the compromise and release be the final resolution of all issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCaleb JonesCounty of MarinPermissibly Self-InsuredAthens AdministratorsADJ9571390Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationbilateral lower extremitiesright upper extremityneck
References
Case No. ADJ8361039
Regular
Oct 05, 2018

Ruth Sievers vs. Central Coast Orthopedics, Compwest Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of $67\%$ permanent disability. The applicant argued for $100\%$ permanent disability and for full reimbursement of vocational expert costs, including reviewing surveillance videos. The majority agreed with the WCJ that the expert's review of videos was not reasonable or necessary, while a dissenting commissioner would have allowed these costs. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning in denying the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability RatingVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Surveillance VideosRebuttal EvidenceMedical-Legal CostsIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ1017037 [SBR0333293]
Regular
Aug 29, 2008

DARREN JOHNSON vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report and finding that the applicant's subjective complaints were not credible and were contradicted by surveillance video.

Permissibly Self-InsuredPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibilityAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEDr. Brourmansurveillance videoobjective findings
References
Case No. ADJ8213064
Regular
Jun 02, 2015

MUBINA KUSLJUGIC vs. COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FOR RETARDED & HANDICAPPED, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for removal by State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) challenging four rulings by the workers' compensation judge. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the limitation on SCIF's cross-examination of the applicant and amending the ruling on the admissibility of surveillance video. The Board affirmed the consolidation of the two cases and the exclusion of the vocational evaluator's report, remanding for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryCross-ExaminationSurveillance VideoVocational EvaluatorDue ProcessImpeachment
References
Case No. ADJ10887066 ADJ10887074
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

RAUL JUAREZ vs. EB DESIGN, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE

This case concerns defendant's ex parte communication with a QME, specifically sending surveillance video and an advocacy letter without proper notice. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the trial judge's order striking the QME report, and remanded the case. The Board clarified that WCAB Rule 10507 extends the timeframe for applicant to object to non-medical records, but not the defendant's initial service deadline under Labor Code section 4062.3(b).

RemovalJoint Findings of FactOrder and Opinion on DecisionQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelorthopedic surgerystrickeninadmissibleLabor Code section 4062.3ex parte communication
References
Showing 1-10 of 128 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