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. ADJ9145724
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ARZAGA, JOSE vs. CROWN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an applicant seeking to select a pain management specialist outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued the MPN failed to provide a qualifying specialist within the required 15-mile/30-minute access standard for a primary treating physician. The Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's right to choose an out-of-network physician and reimbursement for investigative costs. The majority reasoned that the MPN must meet the closer access standard for a primary treating physician, even if that physician is a specialist. A dissenting opinion argued that a specialist, when chosen as a primary treating physician, should fall under the 30-mile/60-minute access standard for specialists.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNprimary treating physicianpain management specialistaccess standardAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5investigative costsLabor Code section 5703Lescallett v. Wal-MartMartinez v. New French Bakery
References
Case No. ADJ11995067
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

ADELINA PEREZ vs. KYONG AE YUN, CHONG MYON YUN, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Adelina Perez sought removal of a May 9, 2022, Findings & Order (F&O) by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found Dr. Marcel Ponton's medical-legal report inadmissible and ordered his replacement, arguing Dr. Ponton was a treating physician to whom Labor Code section 4062.3 did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the petition as one for reconsideration and found that Dr. Ponton was indeed a treating physician, not a panel-selected medical-legal evaluator, rendering section 4062.3 inapplicable. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted new findings affirming Dr. Ponton's role as a treating physician, and ordered his continuation as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator.

RemovalReconsiderationLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical-legal evaluatorTreating physicianMPNNeuropsychological assessmentTraumatic brain injuryAdmissibility of evidence
References
Case No. ANA 0400833
Regular
Aug 18, 2008

WILLIAM GEORGE THOMAS JULIE THOMAS as GUARDIAN AD LITEM and TRUSTEE vs. H&A AUTO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury and permanent total disability. The employer challenged the reliance on the applicant's treating physician's medical reports. The Board affirmed the findings, holding that treating physician reports are admissible under Labor Code sections 4060(b) and 4061.5. The employer failed to rebut the treating physician's opinions by properly invoking independent medical evaluation procedures.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardGuardian Ad LitemTrusteeIndustrial InjuryAuto MechanicNeck InjuryQuadriplegiaTemporary DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityTreating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ9343248
Regular
Dec 07, 2017

LONNY BUBAK vs. SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT

This case, concerning a workers' compensation claim by Lonny Bubak against Solano County Sheriff's Department, involves the application of Labor Code section 4062.9, which presumes the correctness of a treating physician's opinion. The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the defendant failed to rebut this presumption. This means the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove the industrial nature of the injury as determined by the treating physician. Therefore, the Appeals Board was bound to accept the treating physician's opinion as correct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgePresumptionLabor Code Section 4062.9Treating PhysicianBurden of ProofRebuttalIndustrial RelationshipSolano County Sheriffs Department
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. ADJ7925931, ADJ7925917
Regular
Sep 27, 2017

LUISA SEQUEIRA vs. RANDSTAD PLACEMENT PROS, ACE AMERICAN

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, arguing that the declaration of readiness to proceed was defective due to a lack of a primary treating physician's report on permanent disability. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding that Labor Code section 4061(i) does not require all treating physicians to find maximum medical improvement before proceeding to trial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) provided substantial medical evidence sufficient to support the permanent disability award, even though primary treating physicians had not yet found MMI. Therefore, the WCJ correctly relied on the PQME's report.

Declaration of readinessPermanent disabilityPrimary treating physicianQualified Medical EvaluatorMaximum medical improvementLabor Code section 4061(i)Substantial medical evidenceFindings Award and OrderReconsiderationIndustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ2745839 (AHM 0136320)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

Linda Kiehlmeier vs. CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN, TRAVELERS ORANGE

This case involves a physician's assistant claiming cumulative industrial injuries from 2000-2006. The WCAB granted reconsideration to clarify temporary disability indemnity, affirming the finding of injury but amending the benefit period and rates for temporary total disability. The applicant will receive benefits starting January 1, 2008, with adjusted weekly amounts for different periods, crediting the defendant for benefits already paid.

Petition for ReconsiderationCumulative Industrial InjuryPhysician's AssistantTemporary DisabilityMaximum RatePanel QMEAquatic TherapyTempurpedic MattressRetroactive BenefitsReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ8914954
Regular
Mar 26, 2015

JUAN CASTRO vs. CONTAINER SUPPLY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings. The ALJ's decision was based on the treating physician's detailed reports and the applicant's credible testimony regarding his persistent limp and use of a cane. The Board gave great weight to the ALJ's credibility determination, noting that a single physician's opinion can constitute substantial evidence. The employer had argued the ALJ erred by relying on the treating physician's opinion over the Panel QME's report.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility determinationsubstantial evidencemedical opinionsPanel QMEtreating physicianpermanent disabilityleft ankle injury
References
Case No. ADJ8677937
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

SHARON ADAMS vs. MERCED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted by INTERCARE

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition, finding it was not a final order. The Board treated the petition as a request for removal, which was denied. The Board determined that the defendant's request for a QME panel in "spine" specialty was proper, despite the applicant's treating physician being in "physical medicine and rehabilitation." The dissenting opinion argued that the defendant failed to provide sufficient medical support to deviate from the treating physician's specialty, especially given the claimed injuries to multiple body parts.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalQMESpecialtyPain MedicineSpineOrthopedicPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationTreating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ6704425
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

MANUEL MENDOZA vs. RACKLEY COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision awarding permanent disability benefits to Manuel Mendoza. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found that the primary treating physician's opinion constituted substantial evidence, even if it differed from other medical opinions. The judge's decision to follow the treating physician's rating, which included consideration of a surgical scar and pain, was upheld. The Board noted that a single physician's relevant and considered opinion can be substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedSubstantial EvidencePhysician OpinionAMA GuidesGuzman DecisionPermanent DisabilityPrimary Treating PhysicianPQMESurgical Scar
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,281 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