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. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
Case No. ADJ2172104 (SAC 0326562)
Regular
Jan 15, 2015

THOMAS MEEKER vs. OREGON PACIFIC BUILDING PRODUCTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the validity of a utilization review (UR) denial for an applicant's requested prescription medication. Initially, the administrative law judge found the UR denial invalid because the reviewing physician did not examine all relevant medical reports. However, following the en banc decision in *Dubon II*, the Appeals Board reversed this finding. The Board ruled that under *Dubon II*, only untimely UR decisions are invalid; other defects, like incomplete medical review, must be addressed through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process. Therefore, the UR denial was deemed valid as it was timely.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationProvigilDubon IIIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9893989
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

DAMIAN SANCHEZ vs. MICHAEL SIMMS dba SIMMS PAINTING AND DECORATING, TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the timeliness of a utilization review (UR) determination regarding a request for home health care. The defendant argued its UR denial was timely because it requested additional information, thereby extending the review period under Labor Code section 4610(g)(1). The WCJ initially found the UR determination untimely for prospective and concurrent review, but timely for retrospective review, citing a narrow interpretation of who can request further information. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found the UR denial timely. The Board held that the defendant's attorney, acting as an agent for the claims administrator, could validly request additional information, extending the UR deadline to 14 days.

Utilization ReviewRequest For AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewProspective ReviewConcurrent ReviewRetrospective ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.1Findings Of Fact And Order
References
Case No. RDG 0115958
Significant
Nov 16, 2004

Brice Sandhagen, Applicant vs. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that the utilization review time deadlines are mandatory; if a defendant fails to meet these deadlines, any utilization review report is inadmissible, and the defendant must use the AME/QME procedure as the objecting party.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Time DeadlinesAdmissibility of EvidenceMedical Treatment RecommendationACOEM GuidelinesAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorSection 4062
References
Case No. ADJ2738569 (LAO 0759524) ADJ553488 (LAO 0759510)
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

CONNIE ALVIZO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Permissibly Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the applicant's entitlement to 24/7 home health care. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and emphasized that the defendant failed to submit the primary treating physician's request for this care to mandatory utilization review. Citing *Sandhagen*, the Board affirmed that Labor Code § 4610 utilization review is the sole mechanism to challenge medical treatment requests. Therefore, the defendant's failure to follow this process bars their current challenge to the 24/7 home health care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardConnie AlvizoDepartment of Industrial RelationsPermissibly UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderhome health care24 hour/7 days per weeksenior legal stenographer
References
Case No. ADJ13656596
Regular
Mar 04, 2025

CARLOS CARTAGENA vs. ORION ORNAMENTAL IRON, INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Cypress Insurance Company. The petition challenged a Findings and Order from November 26, 2024, which found in favor of a lien claimant, DENTAL TRAUMA CENTER. The defendant argued that the lien claimant failed to timely submit billing and that there was insufficient evidence for the dental injury. Additionally, the defendant sought retrospective utilization review. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, upheld the original decision, citing that the lien claimant's billing was timely served on a co-defendant, that exceptions to the 12-month billing rule apply when a claim is initially denied as non-industrial, and that the defendant failed to present medical evidence to rebut the applicant's medical opinions. The WCAB also denied retrospective utilization review due to the defendant's initial failure to medically investigate the disputed body part.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSTransmission to Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.9Utilization ReviewURDeferral of Utilization Review
References
Case No. ADJ17821210
Regular
Aug 29, 2025

ROGELIO TOSCANO vs. ELITE EARTHWORKS & ENGINEERING, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Rogelio Toscano, the applicant, suffered a significant brain injury and has been receiving ongoing outpatient rehabilitation. The defendants attempted to discontinue this care via utilization review, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found this action invalid. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the defendants' petition for reconsideration, affirming that the defendants failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances necessary to justify a new utilization review for previously authorized ongoing treatment. Commissioner Razo dissented, arguing that the majority's reliance on the Patterson rule incorrectly carves out an exception to Labor Code section 4610's utilization review requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemUtilization ReviewPatterson v. The Oaks FarmNational Cement Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rivota)Allied Signal Aero. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wiggs)Request for AuthorizationMedical TreatmentBrain Injury Rehabilitation
References
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. ADJ7803069
Regular
Mar 22, 2016

EDILBERTO CERNA ROMERO vs. STONES AND TRADITIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the judge's finding regarding a September 14, 2015 utilization review (UR) decision. The Board found this second UR decision, which sought further information on some treatments, to be timely for all requested modalities. Consequently, the Board ruled that the UR decision of September 14, 2015, was timely, and the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to review the medical necessity of the denied treatments. The Board did not disturb the WCJ's finding that the August 12, 2015 UR decision was untimely.

Utilization ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Request for AuthorizationDWC Form RFAIndependent Medical ReviewMedical NecessityProspective ReviewConcurrent ReviewAppeals Board
References
Showing 1-10 of 7,507 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