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. ADJ8700541
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

ZAHRA STEPHENS vs. COX ENTERPRISES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's finding of permanent and total disability based on the opinions of a psychologist, Dr. Windman, and a vocational expert, Mr. Wilkinson. The Board found that Dr. Windman's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to inconsistencies, inadequate record review, and conflicts with other medical opinions. Consequently, Mr. Wilkinson's vocational opinion, which relied heavily on Dr. Windman's findings, was also deemed not substantial evidence. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a new determination of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityMedical OpinionVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidencePQMENeurologistPsychologistOrthopedist
References
10
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
4
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
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
0
Case No. ADJ2262922 (SRO 0041418)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

DEBBIE LEVINE vs. STARBUCKS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a permanent disability rating of 42%, arguing the vocational expert's assessment of diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) was rebutted and that Labor Code section 4662 should apply for total disability. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the applicant failed to present substantial evidence to rebut the DFEC, as she never sought employment and her vocational expert's opinion was largely attributed to economic factors. Furthermore, the Board found no basis for applying Labor Code section 4662, as the applicant's alleged permanent total disability was not supported by persuasive medical or vocational evidence. The applicant's unsupported claim of zero earning capacity was contradicted by medical opinions.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 PDRSOgilvie IOgilvie IIrebuttalLabor Code section 4662permanent total disabilityvocational expertsubstantial evidenceAME
References
5
Case No. ADJ7399938 ADJ7068967
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

OLENA GARCIA vs. RESIDENCE INN, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further development of the record. The initial award found permanent total disability based on a vocational expert's opinion, but the Board found this opinion lacked substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the medical expert's supplemental report was not based on a current evaluation, and the vocational expert's conclusions, relying on that report, were therefore also flawed. The matter is remanded to allow for a current medical evaluation and reassessment of vocational rehabilitation and diminished earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityJoint Findings and AwardVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceScheduled RatingFunctional Capacity EvaluationAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentModified Work
References
0
Case No. ADJ1 44848 (GRO 0032874)
Regular
Apr 26, 2016

BILLY BRANHAM vs. ARROYO GRANDE GLASS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board rescinded the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision granting a 63% permanent disability award. This was because the WCJ improperly rejected the vocational expert's opinion regarding the impact of industrial medications on the applicant's ability to compete in the labor market. The Board remanded the case for further development of both medical and vocational records, specifically requesting updated opinions on the side effects of the applicant's medications. This is to ensure a more thorough investigation into the cognitive effects of prescribed drugs on the applicant's work capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to ReopenPermanent Disability AwardVocational ExpertCognitive EffectsIndustrially-Prescribed MedicationsMedical Record DevelopmentApportionmentDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
8
Case No. ADJ2653468 (LBO 0389795), ADJ7229862, ADJ9578758, ADJ10137164
Regular
Apr 28, 2017

MUKESH SINGH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a decision awarding high permanent disability ratings to Mukesh Singh based on a vocational expert's opinion that he couldn't compete in the labor market. The WCAB found the expert's opinion insufficient because it failed to adequately address the impact of non-industrial factors and the applicant's ability to participate in vocational rehabilitation. Consequently, the WCAB amended the decision to use scheduled permanent disability ratings for each of the applicant's three injuries, allowing for apportionment among them. This adjustment corrects an improper use of the Combined Values Chart for combining distinct injuries and aligns the award with existing legal precedent on rebutting scheduled ratings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityScheduled RatingsApportionmentVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceLeBoeuf Rule
References
6
Case No. ADJ7781219
Regular
Nov 19, 2019

CHARLES SINCLAIR vs. RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; Legally Uninsured; administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/ STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Charles Sinclair, a Licensed Vocational Nurse, who sustained an injury to his hands, wrists, and upper extremities on December 21, 2010, resulting in complex regional pain syndrome. The WCJ found Sinclair to be 100% permanently disabled based on the opinions of treating physicians Dr. Baker and Dr. Pelton, and vocational expert Enrique Vega, despite conflicting opinions from other medical examiners. The defendants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing a lack of substantial evidence and insufficient apportionment to prior injuries. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings and adopting the WCJ's report, which found the defendant failed to meet their burden of proof regarding apportionment.

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeVocational ExpertApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilitySynergistic EffectPain ManagementCredibility Determination
References
4
Case No. ADJ3317169 (FRE 0210465); ADJ2130054 (FRE 0162261); ADJ4055925 (FRE 0210461); ADJ728821 (FRE 0210462); ADJ2475719 (FRE 0210463); ADJ3052880 (FRE 0226010); ADJ207659 (FRE 0210464)
Regular
May 21, 2025

Earl Meyers vs. Fresno Unified School District, CNA Claims Plus

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) June 9, 2021, Joint Findings of Fact, Award, and Opinion on Decision. The WCJ had found the applicant, Earl Meyers, to be 100% permanently totally disabled due to multiple industrial injuries precluding him from vocational rehabilitation and competing in the open labor market. Defendant, Fresno Unified School District, petitioned for reconsideration, arguing misapplication of Labor Code sections 4662 and 4663 regarding apportionment and insufficient evidence for total disability. The Board, reviewing medical and vocational expert opinions, concluded that the defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence for apportionment of the applicant's work restrictions to non-industrial causes, thereby upholding the 100% permanent total disability finding.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings of FactAwardOpinion on DecisionPetition for Reconsiderationvocational rehabilitationopen labor marketpermanent total disabilityapportionmentLabor Code Section 4662
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 18,923 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