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. ADJ4111589, ADJ2809505, ADJ4372783, ADJ1391390, ADJ2081394, ADJ8992669
Regular
Oct 09, 2015

GUILLERMO CORNEJO vs. SOLAR TURBINES, INC.

This case involves a worker who sustained multiple admitted industrial injuries to his right foot, back, right thigh, psyche, right lower extremity, and hands. The applicant alleged a subsequent left shoulder condition arose as a compensable consequence of these prior injuries due to a fall. Initially, an administrative law judge found the fall was not industrial, ruling the applicant merely tripped. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that medical evidence established the applicant's admitted industrial injuries caused weakness in his right lower extremity and balance issues, which contributed to his fall. Therefore, the Board reversed the prior ruling, determining the left shoulder condition was a compensable consequence of the original industrial injuries.

compensable consequenceadmitted industrial injuriesleft shoulder conditionright footright lower extremitybalanceweaknessfallL4-L5 fusionradiculopathy
References
Case No. ADJ9749879
Regular
Mar 22, 2017

HERNAN VILLACIS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPT.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the previous findings of fact and returned the case for further proceedings. The central issue is whether the applicant's fall from a four-story building was an industrial injury or an intentional self-inflicted act. The Board found that the trial level erred by excluding the applicant's wife's testimony, which may have provided crucial evidence on the applicant's mental state. Furthermore, the Board noted the lack of medical evidence to definitively determine if the fall was suicidal, requiring further development of the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationSelf-Inflicted InjuryMarital PrivilegeFall from HeightIntentional JumpSlip and FallCredibility DeterminationMedical Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ10443669
Regular
Oct 04, 2017

Donna Carter vs. Rose International Group, OneBeacon Insurance Group

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that Donna Carter sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and left wrist on May 18, 2016. Despite inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony regarding a slip and fall incident, her account was corroborated by a witness who found her on the floor. Medical records from the day of the incident also supported the applicant's claim, establishing a clear mechanism of injury. The Board found that the common sense nature of a slip and fall does not require expert medical opinion to establish industrial causation for the incident itself.

ADJ10443669Rose International GroupOneBeacon Insurance GroupDonna CarterWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationslip and fallindustrial injuryright kneeleft wrist
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. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
Case No. ADJ4213823 (AHM 01440-4)
Regular
Jun 02, 2010

RODOLFO PLASCENCIA (Deceased), TERESA PLASCENCIA (Widow) vs. LOS ANGELES DODGERS, ACE USA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior award, ruling that applicant Rodolfo Plascencia's neck injury sustained from a fall was not compensable. The Board found that the applicant's blood alcohol level of .187% was a material and substantial cause of his fall, thus barring compensation under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The majority credited expert testimony indicating the intoxication impaired judgment and physical ability, making it the probable cause of the fall in the absence of other evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof and that reasonable doubt should favor the employee, citing lack of evidence for intoxication being the sole cause and the possibility of other fall factors.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)intoxication defensematerial and substantial factorblood alcohol level.187%addiction substance abuse expertwaiver of objectioncommon knowledgeslip and fallreasonable inferences
References
Case No. ADJ6561833
Regular
Aug 19, 2011

Stephen Resetar vs. CONSTRUCTORA AMORA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a worker, Stephen Resetar, who sustained a physical injury to his spine after falling from a ladder. Resetar also claimed a psychological injury, but had been employed for less than six months. Labor Code § 3208.3(d) generally bars compensation for psychiatric injuries in such cases unless caused by a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Appeals Board found that Resetar's fall, caused by dizziness and falling from a ladder, did not qualify as a sudden and extraordinary event. Therefore, Resetar's claim for psychiatric injury is barred, and reconsideration is granted to reflect this decision.

Labor Code § 3208.3(d)psyche injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulereconsiderrescindcompensable injuryfall from ladderdizzinessdehydration
References
Case No. ADJ8045034
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

JAMES BOCKMANN vs. WESTERN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a worker's compensation claim for injury to the neck, scalp, and back following a motor vehicle collision and subsequent fall. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of the trial judge's award because the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion lacked substantial evidence due to an unclear and potentially inaccurate medical history. The WCAB found that the medical record was contradictory regarding the cause of the applicant's back injury, making meaningful review impossible. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the award and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to determine which incident, or combination thereof, caused the injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurytruck drivermotor vehicle collisionfaintingfallaggravated pre-existing injuryAgreed Medical Evaluatormedical recordreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8752161
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

Daniel Rita vs. Cheesecake Factory, ACE American Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior finding of industrial injury for applicant Daniel Rita. The Board found that applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish an industrial slip and fall injury. This decision was based on the applicant's testimony being directly contradicted by three witnesses, rendering his self-serving statement about the fall less persuasive. Therefore, the Board ruled that no industrial injury occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial InjuryBurden of ProofPreponderance of the EvidenceCredibilityWitness TestimonySlip and FallServer
References
Case No. ADJ7096070
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

HUGO PEREZ vs. CONSTRUCTION ZONE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured in a scaffolding fall who also claims psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the applicant, employed for less than six months, argued his psychiatric injury stemmed from a "sudden and extraordinary" event. The Board found the protective tubing giving way during his fall constituted an extraordinary event, thus excepting it from the six-month employment rule for psychiatric claims. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment rulesudden and extraordinary eventscaffoldingfall from heightprotective tubingcompensabilityreconsiderationrescinded
References
Showing 1-10 of 183 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