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. ADJ8210063; ADJ8621818
En Banc
Aug 29, 2023

GRACE NUNES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior en banc decision that permanent disability apportionment must be based on a physician's medical evaluation as mandated by Labor Code section 4663, and that vocational evidence cannot substitute an impermissible 'vocational apportionment' in place of a valid medical apportionment.

VOCATIONAL APPORTIONMENTMEDICAL APPORTIONMENTPERMANENT DISABILITYQUALIFIED MEDICAL EVALUATORLABOR CODE SECTION 4663SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCEAPPEALS BOARD EN BANCFINDINGS OF FACT AND AWARDFINAL ORDERRECONSIDERATION DENIED
References
32
Case No. ADJ1801230 (MON 0298983)
Regular

BARBARA JOBERG vs. ILLUMINATIONS, INC., ARROWOOD INDEMNITY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award of 100% permanent disability. The Board found the Administrative Law Judge erred by failing to adequately address apportionment of permanent disability to nonindustrial factors, despite medical evidence suggesting such apportionment. The vocational expert's testimony was questioned for not reviewing all relevant reports and lacking a written report without good cause. The case was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record on apportionment and the vocational expert's testimony.

ApportionmentPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical EvaluatorVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceWCJWCABReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
15
Case No. ADJ1862235 (FRE 0206581) ADJ1010899 (FRE 0206582)
Regular
Dec 17, 2014

ORVIL MARTIN vs. NATIONAL CEMENT/BUILDERS, CONFRETE, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The WCAB found the original decision lacked substantial evidence regarding the applicant's 100% permanent disability rating and apportionment between two industrial injuries. Specifically, the WCAB noted insufficient medical and vocational evidence to fully explain the permanent disability, especially considering the applicant's attempted vocational rehabilitation. The board emphasized the need for updated medical reports, proper apportionment of psychiatric injury, and thorough vocational expert analysis.

ApportionmentVocational feasibilityDiminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC)Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial evidenceReconsiderationFurther proceedings
References
0
Case No. ADJ171583 (MON 0294858) ADJ261117 (MON 0308771)
Regular
Feb 02, 2009

Camey Cresor vs. GOLDMAN, SACHS & COMPANY, ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for psychiatric injury and other conditions. The applicant was found to have an $82\%$ permanent disability rating, with $80\%$ attributed to psychiatric issues after apportionment. The key dispute is the $20\%$ apportionment of psychiatric disability to non-industrial factors, which the applicant argues is improper for a finding of permanent total disability based on vocational unfeasibility. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report which cited precedent (Hertz Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Aguilar)) confirming that vocational unfeasibility is subject to apportionment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAmended Joint Finding and Awardindustrial injurypsychelow backheadachespermanent disabilitypermanent total disabilityapportionmentnon-industrial factors
References
1
Case No. ADJ6668989
Regular
Feb 02, 2018

KAREN GIBBS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; Legally Uninsured; adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award finding the applicant permanently totally disabled. The defendant argued the applicant should not be allowed to include psychological and sleep disorder injuries, that the sleep disorder rating was improperly duplicated, and that the vocational expert failed to account for apportionment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the defendant stipulated to the inclusion of psychological and sleep disorder injuries. Furthermore, the medical and vocational evidence supported the permanent total disability finding even without those additions, and the defendant waived the apportionment issue by not challenging the WCJ's finding of no legal basis for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardPetition to ReopenPermanent Total DisabilityCumulative Trauma InjuryRadiculopathyPsyche DisorderSleep DisorderAgreed Medical Examiners
References
3
Case No. ADJ8240882; ADJ8240881; ADJ8615401
Regular
Apr 21, 2025

ROBERT S. HAPPENY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN

Applicant Robert S. Happeny sustained industrial injuries during his employment as a correctional officer, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability by the WCJ due to his inability for vocational retraining. The WCJ also issued an unapportioned award, concluding that apportionment to nonindustrial factors was not proven. Defendant challenged this decision via a petition for reconsideration, disputing the method of combining disabilities and the reliability of vocational reports. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's determination of permanent and total disability based on vocational infeasibility and the lack of established apportionment, ultimately rescinding the original decision and substituting new findings of fact.

ADJ8240882ADJ8240881ADJ8615401correctional officerindustrial injuryheartpsycheright wristrespiratory systemlumbar spine
References
14
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
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. ADJ11220615; ADJ11220621
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

WILLIAM GARRISON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a firefighter claiming permanent and total disability due to multiple industrial injuries. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the applicant's vocational expert's report lacked substantial evidence and that the Workers' Compensation Judge failed to consider nonindustrial apportionment. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of permanent and total disability, finding the applicant's vocational expert's analysis more persuasive and the defendant's apportionment argument unsubstantiated by sufficient medical evidence. Reconsideration was granted solely to defer the issue of the permanent disability commencement date.

WCABPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertIndependent Medical EvaluatorUlcerative ColitisColectomyRheumatoid ArthritisActinic KeratosisTinnitus
References
13
Case No. ADJ2186466
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

AMADO URIAS vs. VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

This case involves Amado Urias's petition for reconsideration of a Supplemental Findings and Award that determined his permanent disability at 54% after apportionment. Urias argued that his vocational expert's opinion on diminished earning capacity should have been prioritized over the medical opinions regarding his physical and psychiatric limitations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found that the issue of psychiatric apportionment was previously adjudicated and that the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence due to its reliance on subjective complaints over objective medical findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertDr. Albert SimpkinsDr. StewartDr. WixenDr. AhmedCumulative Injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,826 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