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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ7685567
Regular
Feb 12, 2015

KATHLEEN O'NEAL vs. HALE ALOHA/MARK ONE CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND

This case involves a dispute over authorization for cervical surgery for applicant Kathleen O'Neal. The defendant argued that Dr. McCormack, who recommended the surgery, was a one-time consultant, not a treating physician, and thus his request for authorization was not subject to utilization review (UR). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the judge's order, finding Dr. McCormack acted as a treating physician by undertaking to obtain authorization and proceed with the surgery. Therefore, the defendant's failure to submit Dr. McCormack's request for authorization to UR in a timely manner meant the UR denial was invalid. The WCAB concluded the defendant was obligated to provide the surgery as it was supported by substantial medical evidence and reasonably necessary.

Utilization ReviewAuthorization RequestTreating PhysicianConsulting PhysicianPrimary Treating PhysicianSecondary Treating PhysicianWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Director's RuleTimelinessJurisdiction
References
Case No. ADJ18027061
Regular
Sep 10, 2025

HEATHER TILLER KELLEY vs. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant Sacramento City Unified School District sought reconsideration of a WCAB decision that found applicant Heather Tiller Kelley sustained industrial injuries and that reports from her treating physicians (Mark Zuber, D.C., Adrienne Pasek, Psy.D., and Kasra Maasumi, M.D.) were admissible. Defendant argued these physicians lacked a proper treatment relationship and that the reports were improperly obtained. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming that defendant relinquished medical control by denying liability, allowing applicant to self-procure treatment, and thus the treating physician reports were admissible in proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Granting PetitionAdmissible EvidenceTreating PhysiciansMedical-Legal ReportsLabor Code Section 4062.2Self-Procured TreatmentRemoval StandardPermanent and Stationary Status
References
Case No. ADJ11314069
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

LUIS TOLENTINO vs. LUKE'S ROOFING, REDWOOD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the proper designation of a primary treating physician within a Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant selected Dr. Huang, who was employed by Casa Colina. The defendant argued this was improper because Casa Colina was only listed for ancillary services and Dr. Huang was not individually listed in the MPN. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that Dr. Huang's designation was proper as long as he acted through Casa Colina, which was included in the MPN without restriction. Regulations permit an entity in the MPN to have its employee physicians considered part of the network, unless specifically excluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical Provider Network (MPN)Ancillary ServicesEmployee PhysicianNon-natural personApplicable RegulationsEntityEmployee
References
Case No. ADJ383777
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

Roxanna Ortiz vs. ONE SOURCE, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Roxanna Ortiz's petition for reconsideration of a prior findings and order. The initial ruling determined she sustained industrial injury only to her cervical spine as a janitor, not to other body parts or any resulting temporary/permanent disability or need for further medical treatment. Ortiz argued the judge erred by favoring defense medical reports and discrediting her testimony due to minor inconsistencies in her injury description. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, emphasizing deference to credibility determinations and that admissibility of medical reports should have been challenged at trial, not on reconsideration. A dissenting opinion argued the judge overemphasized minor variations in Ortiz's account and that medical evidence did not sufficiently support denial of other injuries or further treatment.

OrtizOne SourceESISWCABFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgeindustrial injurycervical spineright arm
References
Case No. ADJ6948621 ADJ7946738
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

STEFANO MUSETTI vs. GOLDEN GATE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING dba RECOLOGY, permissibly self-insured, administered by CORVEL CORP.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of an award ordering a total knee replacement. The applicant's treating physician recommended the surgery, but the employer argued the award was premature as a panel qualified medical evaluator's report was pending and the treating physician's report lacked proper authorization markings. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the employer had sufficient time to obtain the PQME report and that the treating physician's report constituted substantial medical evidence supporting the surgery. The Board also noted that the employer failed to initiate utilization review despite being aware of the treatment request.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryright kneegarbage collectortotal knee replacementsupplemental reportpanel qualified medical evaluator (PQME)treating physiciansubstantial medical evidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. SAC 342547
Regular
Jun 06, 2008

CLIFFORD J. FARIA vs. BEST BUY COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior order, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision addresses disputes regarding the applicant's right to change treating physicians, the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) obligations, and the calculation of the applicant's average weekly earnings. The Board requires further development of the record on these key issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBest Buy CompanyAce American Insurance CompanyClifford FariaOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Treating PhysicianMedical Provider Network (MPN)Temporary Disability Indemnity
References
Case No. ADJ8505079
Regular
May 11, 2016

MATTHEW LOPEZ vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This case concerns Matthew Lopez's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a back injury. The City and County of San Francisco, the defendant, denied a Request for Authorization (RFA) for disc replacement surgery recommended by Dr. Jones, a consulting physician. The Appeals Board held that Dr. Jones, acting at the primary treating physician's behest and possessing specialized expertise, qualified as a secondary treating physician authorized to submit an RFA. Because the defendant failed to timely perform utilization review (UR) on Dr. Jones' RFA or communicate its decision, the Board affirmed the award of medical treatment, finding jurisdiction to determine its necessity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationSecondary Treating PhysicianPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical NecessityLabor Code section 4610DWC Form RFAAdministrative Director RulesPeer Review
References
Case No. ADJ10975151
Regular
Jan 06, 2020

RUSSELL CAMARA vs. TESLA, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to the lumbar spine. The Applicant's primary treating physician (PTP) designated a secondary physician to evaluate permanent and stationary status and impairment, whose report the PTP adopted. The defense challenged the validity of this secondary physician's report, arguing only the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner's (PQME) report was properly obtained. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming that the PTP, or a physician designated by the PTP, is authorized to render opinions on medical issues, provided proper notice and procedural requirements are met. The Board found the designation and subsequent report were compliant with Labor Code and Administrative Director Regulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPrimary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical ExaminerLabor Code Section 4061.5Permanent and Stationary ReportMedical-Legal EvaluationSecondary PhysicianAdministrative Director Rule 9785Designation of Physician
References
Case No. ADJ7160976
Regular
Sep 25, 2012

ANTONETTA WILLIAMS vs. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings because the administrative law judge improperly relied on a secondary treating physician's report. The judge failed to establish that the requested attendant care was authorized or constituted substantial medical evidence. The Board emphasized that the primary treating physician must issue opinions on medical issues and the record needs further development to determine entitlement to attendant care.

Attendant carePrimary treating physicianSecondary treating physicianMedical treatment authorizationUtilization reviewSubstantial medical evidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsiderationAgreed Medical Examiner
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,032 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