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. BAK 145900; BAK 146234 BAK 146235
Regular
Sep 26, 2007

AMALIA DIAZ vs. MCDONALDS/GAVINO MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTEE COMPANY, LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The applicant sustained an industrial knee injury and was awarded continuing temporary disability (TDI) based on an amputation exception. Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing knee surgery is not an amputation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to apply the recent en banc decision in *Cruz*, which clarified that "amputation" refers to severance of external body parts. The prior award was rescinded and the matter remanded for a new decision consistent with *Cruz*.

Labor Code section 4656subdivision (c)(2)(C)amputation exceptiontotal knee arthroplastytemporary disability indemnitypermanent and stationaryreconsiderationen banc decisionCruz v. Mercedes Benz of San Franciscorescinded
References
1
Case No. ADJ2023774
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHRISTOPHER CORBO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns whether an applicant's severe crush injury to his left foot, involving a partial avulsion of the heel pad, constitutes an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C) for purposes of extending temporary disability indemnity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that the injury did not meet the definition of amputation. The Board clarified that "amputation" requires severance or removal of a limb or appendage, not merely a severe laceration or partial separation of tissue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4656(c)(3)(C)AmputationTemporary DisabilityCrush InjuryAvulsionHeel PadCalcaneusCruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco
References
4
Case No. LAO 829404, LAO 815773
Regular
Jul 20, 2007

LOLONDRA McCOY vs. AVIATION SAFEGUARDS aka COMMAND SECURITY, KEMPER GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous award of vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found no substantial evidence to support the applicant's claim that her diabetes, left leg amputation, or right toe amputation were industrially caused, despite the treating physician's opinion. The case was remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify industrial causation for the specific body parts claimed as injured.

Vocational RehabilitationIndustrial CausationDiabetesAmputationQMETreating DoctorCompromise and ReleaseThomas FindingContinuous TraumaLabor Code section 5908.5
References
3
Case No. MON 297119
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

EDMUND BURNS, Jr. vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a police officer who sustained an industrial injury to his right foot after stepping on a foreign object, which, due to his pre-existing diabetes, led to a gangrenous infection and amputation. The defendant argued for apportionment of the permanent disability to the applicant's diabetes, but the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision. The medical evidence indicated that the amputation would not have occurred absent the industrial injury, thus establishing industrial causation for the entire permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentPre-existing DiabetesCausationEscobedo v. MarshallsSenate Bill 899Qualified Medical ExaminerTreating Physician
References
8
Case No. SAL 0107786
Regular
Oct 16, 2007

MOLLY KIRKPATRICK vs. DOMINICAN SANTA CRUZ HOSPITAL, PSI ADMINISTERED BY OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case concerns an injured worker who had cervical spine surgery involving diskectomy, vertebrectomy, decompression, and fusion. The defendant sought reconsideration of an award granting temporary disability benefits beyond the statutory 104-week limit, arguing the surgery was not an amputation. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the matter for further proceedings, as the definition of "amputation" in precedent excludes internal body parts like those removed during spinal fusion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDominican Santa Cruz HospitalOctagon Risk ServicesMolly KirkpatrickIndustrial InjuryCervical Spine SurgeryTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4656(c)AmputationDiskectomy
References
1
Case No. LAO 854789
Regular
Oct 09, 2007

Juana Manriquez vs. KENVIN, INC., dba CORDOVAN & GREY LTD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought extended temporary disability benefits, claiming a rotator cuff debridement during shoulder arthroscopy constituted an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that "debridement" of an internal body part, like bone, does not meet the statutory definition of amputation. This definition requires the severance or removal of a limb or body appendage, conforming to the common understanding of the term.

Juana ManriquezKenvin IncState Compensation Insurance FundLAO 854789Petition for ReconsiderationAugust 6 2007 Findings and Ordershoulder arthroscopyamputationLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)temporary disability
References
4
Case No. SAL 0116965
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

Valentine Ushakoff vs. MONTEREY GOURMET FOODS, SENTRY CLAIMS COMPANY, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing a total disk replacement constituted an amputation and thus entitled them to extended temporary disability benefits beyond the 104-week limit. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the surgery was not an amputation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C), as it involved internal body parts. The Board deferred issues regarding credit for overpayment of temporary disability and an EDD lien for further determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryroute driverthoracolumbar spineCharité total disk replacementamputationLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)temporary disability indemnitydeferred issues
References
2
Case No. SDO 0354449
Regular
Sep 20, 2007

ADAM PERRY vs. HAMMOND \& MASING CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award denying additional temporary disability payments beyond the statutory 104-week limit. The applicant sought to extend payments based on his knee surgeries, arguing they constituted "amputations" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). The Board held that the term "amputation" in this context refers to the severance of external body parts, not the surgical removal of internal knee fragments or cartilage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2)(C)AmputationsOsteochondral FragmentChondroplastyACL Reconstruction
References
1
Case No. LAO 0850067
Regular
Sep 24, 2007

JULIE RAMIREZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAROLE COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior WCJ finding, ruling that total knee replacement surgery does not constitute an "amputation" for the purpose of extending temporary disability indemnity beyond the 104-week statutory limit. The Board clarified that "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C) applies only to the severance or removal of external limbs or appendages, not internal body parts. Therefore, the applicant's claim for additional temporary disability indemnity was denied.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)Amputation exceptionTemporary disability indemnity104-week capReconsiderationRemovalInterim Findings and AwardKnee replacement surgeryBilateral kneesIndustrial injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ6984259
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

DEENNIS LANGSTON vs. CUSTOM BUILDING PROJECTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for lien claimants AIM Radiology, Metrics Medical Group, and Noninvasive Therapeutics. Their liens were dismissed by the WCJ because they failed to pay the required lien activation fee *prior* to the lien conference. The Board found their argument that payment during the conference was sufficient was contrary to Labor Code Section 4903.06(a)(4) and Administrative Director Rule 10208(a). Furthermore, the Board cannot rule on the constitutionality of the statute as Noninvasive Therapeutics argued.

Lien activation feesWCABReconsideration deniedLabor Code Section 4903.06Administrative Director Rule 10208Proof of paymentLien conferenceDismissal with prejudiceConstitutional challengeArticle 14 Section 4
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 106 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