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. ADJ10802982
Regular
Feb 28, 2020

John Klimkiewicz vs. Regents of the University of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant was employed by "University of California, Irvine." The Board judicially noticed that the Regents of the University of California is the sole legal employer, encompassing all its campuses, including UC Irvine. Consequently, the applicant's civil settlement with the Regents was not with a "third party," and the defendant's petition for a third-party credit was denied. The Board affirmed the finding of no industrial injury to the chest, arms, or sleep disorder.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationThird Party CreditLabor Code section 3861Labor Code section 3856Regents of the University of CaliforniaUniversity of California IrvineJudicial NoticePermissibly Self-InsuredIndustrial Injury
References
14
Case No. ADJ1034572
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

TROY BOWEN vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The applicant, Troy Bowen, alleged his employer, the Regents of the University of California, violated Labor Code § 132a by retaliating against him, leading to his termination. The WCJ found the applicant's allegations of discrimination and his version of events not credible. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, deferring to the judge's credibility determinations, and found no violation of Labor Code § 132a based on the evidence.

Labor Code § 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJcredibility determinationdiscriminationretaliatory conductterminationrestricted areaindustrial injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ2842535
Regular
May 27, 2011

JANE HUTZELL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA at BERKELEY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by applicant Jane Hutzell against the University of California at Berkeley. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report. The judge found that vocational experts' opinions did not adequately address the impact of medical apportionment or the specifics of part-time work availability on the overall industrial disability rating. Therefore, the judge's rating, based on established schedules, was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational ExpertsLumbar Spine ConditionCumulative TraumaNon-Industrial FactorsObesityApportionmentBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBilateral Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
References
0
Case No. ADJ3705074
Regular
Nov 18, 2015

DIANA BADYRKA vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO

This case involves a worker's compensation claim by Diana Badyrka against the Regents of the University of California San Diego for bilateral foot and ankle injuries. The applicant sought reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision regarding apportionment of her permanent disability. The WCJ found that 50% of the applicant's impairment was due to a congenital foot structure, a position supported by medical evaluations from both the Qualified Medical Evaluator and the applicant's treating physician. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, denying the petition for reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationdeniedRegents of the University of California San DiegoSedgwick CMSnursebilateral feet and anklesapportionmentpermanent disabilityQualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)
References
0
Case No. ADJ9296500
Regular
Dec 30, 2016

CLVIRA REYNAGA vs. THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK

In *Reynaga v. The Regents of University of California*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Elvira Reynaga's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on November 4, 2016, which was over 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) October 7, 2016 decision. The WCAB clarified that the 25-day filing deadline, with potential extensions, is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. As the petition was untimely received, the WCAB lacked authority to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Labor Code 5900Labor Code 5903Administrative Law Judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ17068636
Regular
May 19, 2025

KATHLEEN ZEPEDA vs. CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

Applicant Kathleen Zepeda claimed injury to her abdomen, back, and lower extremities while employed by California Baptist University. Lien claimant Medland Medical Group and defendant California Baptist University both sought reconsideration of a February 19, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A). The F&A entitled Medland Medical Group to payment for medical-legal costs related to an April 26, 2023 report but did not find an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, and affirmed the F&A with an amendment to explicitly state that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of establishing injury AOE/COE.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical-Legal ReportPrimary Treating PhysicianInjury AOE/COESubstantial EvidenceContested ClaimMedical Treatment Costs
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. ADJ7673518
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION/CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The defendant, AO-The University Corporation/California State University Northridge, sought reconsideration of a prior decision finding the applicant sustained an industrial neck injury on January 24, 2011. Defendant argued the applicant's alleged dishonesty under oath invalidated the injury report. However, the Board previously found sufficient additional evidence supported the industrial injury finding, even considering credibility issues. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, reaffirming its prior decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryneck injurylied under oathcredibilitysufficient additional evidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAO-The University Corporation
References
0
Case No. ADJ8290469
Regular
Jul 02, 2015

Mario Cortez vs. The Regents of the University of California Riverside; permissibly self-insured, administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services

This case concerns Mario Cortez, a police officer for the University of California-Riverside, who claimed cumulative skin cancer to his face due to sun exposure during his employment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and stay of the award. The Board found substantial evidence supported the finding of industrial causation for basal cell carcinoma, based on medical reports and the applicant's testimony. The Board also affirmed the 25% permanent partial disability rating and the 90% apportionment to industrial causes, deeming the physician's reasoning sound.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative injuryskin cancerbasal cell carcinomapermanent partial disabilityapportionmentindustrial causationAMA GuidesLabor Code Section 3212.1treating physician
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,797 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