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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ6975049
Regular
Jun 05, 2018

CONSUELO VIEYRA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that the defendant's utilization review denials were not timely communicated to the physician. While the initial WCJ found the UR timely, the WCAB disagreed, asserting jurisdiction to determine medical necessity. Crucially, the WCAB found that the 2009 Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guideline used for the denial was an invalid regulation. The matter was returned for further development of the record regarding medical necessity, considering the proper legal framework for treatment requests.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardConsuelo VieyraCounty of Los AngelesUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationHome Health CareReasonable and Necessary TreatmentMedical TreatmentIndependent Medical ReviewMTUS Chronic Pain Medical Treatment Guidelines
References
Case No. ADJ1871643 (SDO 0291759)
Regular
Oct 23, 2017

JOSE GOMEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION PAROLE & COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's award of medical treatment. The defendant's Utilization Review denial was deemed untimely because their Request for Information was served more than five business days after the initial request, excluding the day after Thanksgiving. The Board clarified that the day after Thanksgiving is considered a normal business day for UR purposes under Labor Code section 4600.4. Therefore, the defendant's untimely RFI did not extend the UR deadline, and the requested medical treatment was properly authorized.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationRequest for InformationTimelinessBusiness DayLabor Code Section 4600.4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPrimary Treating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ10084576
Regular
Oct 06, 2016

ROSE SMITH vs. MEGGITT SENSING SYSTEMS PLC, THE HARTFORD

This case involves Rose Smith's workers' compensation claim where the defendant, Meggit Sensing Systems and its insurer, The Hartford, seek reconsideration of an order allowing Smith to obtain medical treatment outside their Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's finding that the defendant's failure to authorize a requested third medical opinion constituted a denial of care. This denial entitled the applicant to seek treatment outside the MPN at the defendant's expense. The defendant argued the request was procedurally deficient and not a request for treatment, but the Board found the failure to respond to the RFA for a third opinion, in context, was a failure to provide reasonable medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Request for Authorization (RFA)Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of Medical TreatmentThird Medical OpinionUtilization Review (UR)Primary Treating PhysicianCumulative TraumaLoss of Control
References
Case No. ADJ7532885
Regular
Aug 01, 2016

DAVID AREVALO vs. THE MILLARD GROUP, AIG/NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinding prior findings. The Board found the initial decision lacked substantial evidence and failed to address crucial issues like the MPN's validity and the employer's loss of medical control. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine these issues and whether the employer refused, delayed, or denied medical treatment. The initial finding of denied treatment was based on insufficient evidence to establish liability for self-procured treatment.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkRefusal of TreatmentDelay of TreatmentDenial of TreatmentLoss of Medical ControlPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMELien ClaimantsPrimary Treating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ4242850 (GOL 0093209) ADJ1997616 (GOL 0093305)
Regular
Mar 10, 2010

RAMON LEON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns a defendant's appeal regarding an award of specific medical treatment (TENS unit and back brace) and attorney fees for industrial injuries sustained in 2001 and 2002. The defendant argued the treatment was not causally related to the accepted injuries and lacked prior notice for utilization review. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the attorney fees. While affirming the need for medical treatment, the Board reversed the attorney fee award, citing Labor Code section 4607 and the Supreme Court's *Smith* decision, which limits such fees to instances of successfully resisting termination of treatment awards, not challenging denial of specific requests.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings of Fact and Awardindustrial injuryneck and low backpermanent disabilityfurther medical treatmentback braceTENS unitphysician's reportreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ7555799 (MF) ADJ7561888
Regular
Sep 08, 2017

REYNA PANIAGUA vs. T & R BANGI'S AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE, administered by ENSTAR GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a finding that her employer did not refuse to provide medical treatment. The applicant's designated Medical Provider Network (MPN) physicians were unable to treat her, leading to delays and her eventual notification that a provider was no longer accepting new patients. Despite the applicant's frustration and inability to secure treatment within the MPN, the Board affirmed the original finding. The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence that the defendant neglected or refused to provide the requested medical treatment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Primary Treating Physician (PTP)Self-Procured TreatmentNeglect or Refusal to Provide TreatmentStipulations With Request for AwardCompromise and ReleaseExpedited HearingDeclaration of David KestnerCentral Valley Occupational Medical Group (CVO)
References
Case No. ADJ4559849
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

PATSY VAN BUSKIRK vs. MOCEO E.V. COMPANY, CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's decision denying attorney fees under Labor Code section 4607. The applicant's attorneys argued fees were owed because the defendant constructively terminated medical treatment without filing a formal petition to terminate the award. However, the Board found that the defendant only disputed specific treatment requests, not initiated proceedings to terminate the overall award of future medical care. Therefore, pursuant to *Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, attorney fees under section 4607 were not applicable.

Labor Code section 4607Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentQualified Medical ExaminerMedical Provider NetworkConstructively TerminatedSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Termination ProceedingsAttorney Fees
References
Case No. ADJ2648619
Regular
Aug 23, 2019

LURA BROWN vs. SCRIPPS HEALTH, SEDGWICK CMS

The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an order allowing attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5. The Board found the prior order lacked adequate factual and evidentiary support, particularly regarding proof of enforcement of a medical treatment award and missing hearing minutes. Consequently, the Board rescinded the attorney's fee order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This ensures a complete record and clear articulation of the WCJ's reasoning before awarding fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing Attorney's FeesLabor Code 5814.5Medical Treatment AwardDurable Medical EquipmentUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationService of Medical ReportsPsychiatric Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ3989406 (SDO 0252973) ADJ3350463 (SDO 0252974)
Regular

ZAYDA HERRING vs. PARADISE VALLEY HOSPITAL

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and found the defendant liable for the requested medical treatment. While the original judge denied treatment due to stale reports and unknown current need, the Board found the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion established the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment at the time of the requests. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the awarded treatment and reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewAgreed Medical ExaminerPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardMedical TreatmentPsychiatric InjuryPrescription Medications
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,139 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