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. ADJ11201607 (MF); ADJ11201608
Significant
Jun 10, 2024

Sammy Vigil vs. County of Kern

The Appeals Board holds that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) may be rebutted by adding impairments when an applicant demonstrates through substantial evidence that there is no overlap in the impact on Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), or that any overlap creates a synergistic effect that amplifies the disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionReconsiderationPermanent Disability Ratings ScheduleCombined Values ChartRebuttalActivities of Daily LivingSynergistic EffectApportionmentHikida
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. Fleet Bank

Plaintiff Mark Moskal, a jeweler, was robbed in Fleet Bank's basement vault area after being directed by a security guard to use a stairwell due to elevator renovations. Moskal and his wife sued Fleet Bank, the building owner (UOB Realty), managing agent (Axiom Real Estate), security company (Effective Security Systems, Inc.), and contractor (Interior Construction Company), alleging negligence for failure to protect him from foreseeable danger. The court granted summary judgment to UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior, finding the attack unforeseeable by them and no duty owed. However, Fleet Bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found questions of fact for a jury regarding Fleet's potential duty to Moskal, given its awareness of the stairwell's danger and its specific policy prohibiting customer use, which was allegedly disregarded.

ForeseeabilityNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareCriminal Act of Third PersonsBank SecurityStairwell DangerConstruction NegligenceRobbery
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ7044663 ADJ7044664 ADJ11257861
Regular
Feb 26, 2020

DAVID PURCELL vs. ALLIED AVIATION HOLDINGS CORPORATION, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address the applicant's claim that his psychiatric and physical disabilities should be added, not combined, leading to a potential $100 \%$ permanent disability award. The WCJ had previously found $82 \%$ permanent disability based on a combination of injuries. The WCAB rescinded the original decision, finding the record lacked substantial evidence on whether the psychiatric disability's "synergistic effect" on physical impairments warranted addition. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to clarify this issue and develop the record for a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersPermanent DisabilityPsychiatric DisabilityPhysical DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerSynergistic EffectCombination of ImpairmentsAddition of Impairments
References
0
Case No. ADJ9601922
Regular
Dec 08, 2020

Bruce Lund vs. RYKO Solutions Inc, Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ryko Solutions' petition for reconsideration, affirming a prior award of 100% permanent disability for Bruce Lund. The Board agreed with the finding that Lund's admitted July 8, 2014 injury to his lumbar spine and psyche was "catastrophic" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B), allowing for additive psychiatric impairment. The Board also upheld the conclusion that Lund is unable to benefit from vocational rehabilitation, rendering him totally disabled due to the synergistic effects of his industrial injuries.

catastrophic injurypermanent disability ratingvocational rehabilitationapportionmentAMA Guidesimpairment ratingpsychiatric disabilityorthopedic injuryCombined Values Chartfunctional capacity evaluation
References
7
Case No. ADJ8433514
Regular
Mar 22, 2019

EZEQUIEL MELGOZA vs. PRKACIN COMPANY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injuries to multiple body parts including shoulders, wrists, spine, ribs, sternum, and psyche. The defendant appealed the finding of 73% permanent disability, arguing it was unsupported by medical evidence and improperly calculated. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding substantial medical evidence supported the assigned impairments for each body part. The Board also upheld the decision to add bilateral upper extremity disabilities due to a synergistic effect, rather than combining them under the Combined Values Chart.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentDRE Cervical Category IIIAMA GuidesCombined Values ChartSynergistic EffectOrthopedicsDr. Ganjianpour
References
6
Case No. ADJ10015407
Regular
Feb 11, 2019

ARACELI MELGOZA GARIBAY vs. SILVERADO FARMING COMPANY INC., SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an amended finding that awarded the applicant 61% permanent partial disability at a rate of $290.00. While the WCAB affirmed the 61% disability rating, finding Dr. Shaw's reports substantial evidence and agreeing that bilateral upper extremity impairments should be added due to synergistic effect, it deferred the issue of the permanent disability indemnity rate. The case was returned to the WCJ for further development of the record regarding the applicant's average weekly earning capacity for the purpose of determining the correct indemnity rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityQualified Medical ExaminerCombined Values ChartSeasonal Agricultural LaborerBilateral Wrist PainCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMyalgia
References
3
Case No. ADJ9451959; ADJ9451967
Regular
Aug 22, 2019

MARK YANCHUNIS vs. SHASTA GOLD CORPORATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCJ properly relied on the agreed medical evaluator's (AME) opinion, which provided substantial evidence for the impairment rating. The AME's analysis, which accounted for severe degenerative changes and gait abnormalities beyond a strict AMA guide application, was deemed persuasive and within legal parameters. The Board affirmed that the AME's reasoning for adding impairments due to a synergistic effect, rather than combining them, was supported by case law and the medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMark YanchunisShasta Gold CorporationZurich American Insurance CompanyADJ9451959ADJ9451967Petition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Almaraz/Guzman analysisAMA Guides
References
3
Case No. ADJ13011053
Regular
Sep 08, 2025

NORBERTO GARCIA vs. DOMINATION COLLABORATION, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Norberto Garcia, a cook, sustained multiple industrial injuries including to his psyche, spine, shoulders, left ankle, lower extremities/gait, kidneys, and in the form of hypertension, anemia, diabetes, and left foot amputation. The WCJ awarded 100% permanent disability, finding that the impairments should be added due to their synergistic effects. Defendants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing errors in combining impairments and apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's findings that Dr. Lonky's medical opinions supported the additive approach for disability calculation and that even with minor adjustments, the applicant's permanent disability still exceeded 100%.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHypertensive Cardiovascular DiseaseRenal DiseaseDiabetes MellitusLeft Foot AmputationGait DerangementVocational Evaluation
References
17
Case No. ADJ7623043
Regular
May 20, 2019

LUCAS CASIAS vs. KF HOWELL ELECTRIC, INC., IMPERIUM INSURANCE

The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of 83% permanent disability, agreeing that the WCJ correctly applied the principle of "synergistic effect" to combine multiple impairments, citing substantial medical opinions. However, the Board remanded the issue of temporary disability benefits, finding the WCJ's reasoning and specific findings on temporary total disability were unclear and inconclusive. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings and a new determination on temporary disability, specifically addressing the disputed period of July 19, 2010, through October 24, 2010. The WCJ's previous findings regarding an award of temporary disability indemnity for the entire period of March 24, 2010, through March 24, 2015, are rescinded pending this redetermination.

Temporary Total DisabilityPermanent Disability RatingCombined Values ChartSynergistic EffectAgreed Medical EvaluatorPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 4656Burn Exception
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 893 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