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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. RDG 0095368; RDG 0095369; RDG 0095573; RDG 0126270
Regular
Sep 25, 2007

HENRY PHILLIPE vs. GOTTSCHALKS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow reimbursement for the applicant's vocational expert fees, reversing the WCJ's decision. The Board found it reasonable for the applicant to hire his own vocational expert to rebut the defendant's expert, especially given the passage of time since the original vocational feasibility report. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant's attorney for the $1,075.00 vocational expert cost.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationExpert Witness FeesVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (QRR)LeBoeuf argumentAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Permanent DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8210063; ADJ8621818
Regular
Feb 27, 2025

GRACE NUNES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Grace Nunes, an applicant, sustained industrial injuries to her neck, left shoulder, and bilateral upper extremities while employed by the State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles. Following a prior reconsideration, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) clarified that 'vocational apportionment' is impermissible and vocational evidence must align with medical apportionment. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) ordered further development of the record with the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) and vocational experts to comply with the Board's decisions. Applicant petitioned for reconsideration or removal of this interlocutory order, which the Appeals Board denied, affirming the WCJ's discretion to develop the record for a just and reasoned decision.

Industrial injuryNeck injuryShoulder injuryBilateral upper extremitiesField representativeVocational retrainingPermanent and total disabilityVocational apportionmentMedical apportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ1966312 (AHM 0071600)
Regular
Jul 02, 2009

CHERYL BOND-DICKEY vs. LAW OFFICE OF SATIN & RUSSELL, SCIF INSURED SANTA ANA

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of 100% permanent disability for a paralegal/file clerk who sustained an industrial injury. The defendant argued the vocational expert's evaluation was insufficient. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant failed to request further vocational evaluation at trial or provide rebuttal evidence. The Board also noted the defendant's petition lacked the specific detail and record references required by regulation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardFindings Award and Orderspermanent disabilityvocational expertopen labor marketpetition for reconsiderationagreed vocational evaluatorsubstantial medical evidenceReport and Recommendationindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ358084 (OAK 0320488)
Regular
Dec 19, 2008

Samuel Arledge vs. RGW Construction, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant sustained 39% permanent disability. The applicant argued for 100% disability based on a vocational expert's opinion and Labor Code section 4662. The Board found the WCJ erred by not fully considering the vocational expert's opinion, specifically regarding the applicant's employability and earning capacity post-injury. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to re-evaluate the vocational expert's findings and determine the applicant's total disability status.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 4662Qualified Medical EvaluatorImpairment RatingWPIFunctional Capacity EvaluationTransferable Skills
References
Case No. ADJ11197264
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

CECILIA MENDOZA vs. BERRYESSA CONTRACTING, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision awarding 25% permanent disability for industrial injuries to the applicant's left shoulder, neck, left lower arm, and upper back. The applicant contended the judge erred by not developing the medical-legal record regarding her vocational expert and by not awarding a higher disability rating based on vocational expert opinions. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions unreliable due to misunderstandings of her physical restrictions and other inaccuracies. Therefore, the applicant failed to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating of 25%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational ExpertPermanent Disability RatingAMA GuidesLabor Code Section 4660.1Scheduled Permanent Disability RatingWhole Person ImpairmentVocational RehabilitationSubstantial Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ8772254
Regular
Jul 20, 2017

Lorenzo Hernandez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lorenzo Hernandez's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award of 24% permanent disability for a right shoulder injury. The applicant argued that a vocational expert's report should have rebutted the scheduled disability rating, but the Board found this report insufficient. Relying on *Ogilvie* and *Dahl*, the Board determined that an applicant's amenability to vocational rehabilitation precludes using vocational expert testimony to challenge a scheduled rating based on lost earning capacity. Therefore, the vocational expert's opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to overcome the QME's scheduled rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertQualified Medical EvaluatorScheduled RatingReconsiderationLabor Code §4660.1AMA Guides 5th EditionAmenability to Vocational RehabilitationDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
Case No. ADJ7761748
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

JOSE VARGAS vs. WEST COAST LIQUIDATORS, INC., dba BIG LOTS STORES, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the recoverability of vocational expert costs and affirmed the applicant's 50% permanent disability rating. It held that the costs of vocational expert Robert Stoneburner's reports are recoverable, even if his opinions weren't found to be substantial evidence, as long as the expert was qualified and the costs were reasonable and necessary. The WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant was given significant weight, and the court found no basis to reject it. The case was remanded to determine the precise amount of recoverable expert costs.

Vocational expertPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent disabilityReimbursementLabor Code section 5811Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial evidenceExpert witness
References
Case No. ADJ869605
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MILES GRAY vs. AT&T, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves an applicant who sustained a severe right lower extremity injury, leading to multiple surgeries, significant leg length discrepancy, and fused ankle/foot, requiring constant mobility aids. The Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) provided opinions on impairment, and vocational experts testified regarding the applicant's ability to return to work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the prior award, finding substantial evidence supporting the applicant's unsuitability for rehabilitation. Defendant's supplemental reply did not alter this decision.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorVocational ExpertPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedRight Lower Extremity InjuryMultiple FracturesLeg Length DiscrepancyShoe LiftAnkle FusionGait Derangement
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,212 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