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. ADJ7369877, ADJ7369872
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct errors in a previous permanent disability rating. The WCJ incorrectly applied the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) WPI ratings, conflating cervical and lumbar spine impairments and miscalculating lower extremity to WPI conversions for the hips. The case is returned to the trial level for a new rating based on correct WPI values and to clarify the basis for any departure from AMA Guides ratings. The apportionment of disability was found to be correct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Cumulative TraumaCervical SpineLumbar SpineHipsDRE Method
References
1
Case No. ADJ8330411
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Paramount Pictures' petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. Paramount argued the ALJ erred by applying a 50% WPI for the applicant's right lower extremity, instead of 30%, based on conflicting reports from an agreed medical examiner. The ALJ found the evidence insufficient to prove the applicant could walk more than a "block" without a walker, which was the key factor in the different WPI ratings. The WCAB gave great weight to the ALJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to overturn them.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent disabilityWPIRight lower extremityOrthopedic AMESpecific date of injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7560161
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves Julie Cagle's workers' compensation claim against Bank of America for admitted industrial injuries to her psyche and abdomen. The Appeals Board reconsidered a prior award, increasing the applicant's permanent disability rating. The key dispute centered on the proper rating for internal injuries under the AMA Guides, with the applicant arguing for a higher WPI rating based on a Class 3 classification. The Board ultimately determined the applicant's internal system impairment warranted a 25% WPI, leading to a total of 49% permanent disability. The award was also clarified to allow the defendant credit for permanent disability advances already paid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJulie CagleBank of AmericaAce American Insurance CompanyCorvelPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardInternal Systems InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ6820873
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration of an award for an injured police officer. The defendant contended the WCJ erred in adopting the PQME's whole person impairment (WPI) ratings for hypertension and cardiomyopathy, and in finding the defendant failed to rebut the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) component. The Board affirmed the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Carlish's WPI ratings, finding them supported by the AMA Guides and substantial evidence. Furthermore, the Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to rebut the scheduled DFEC rating, as their arguments lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHypertensionHypertensive Heart DiseaseCardiomyopathyWhole Person Impairment (WPI)AMA GuidesDisability Evaluation SpecialistDiminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC)Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco
References
6
Case No. No. 08-11-00276-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2012

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Rhonda Barbour sued her former employer, Williams-Pyro, Inc. (WPI), for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). A jury found in Barbour's favor, awarding $250,000 in damages, which the trial court reduced to $120,714.40 due to statutory caps, also awarding $154,335 in attorney's fees. WPI appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding age as a motivating factor in Barbour's termination and asserting the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to Barbour's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Barbour cross-appealed, contending the trial court erred by not applying a multiplier to her attorney's fee award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety, concluding that sufficient direct evidence supported the age discrimination finding, Barbour had exhausted administrative remedies, and the trial court correctly ruled it lacked authority to apply a multiplier under Texas Labor Code Section 21.259.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawTexas Commission on Human Rights ActWrongful TerminationAttorney's FeesLodestar MethodMultipliersSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesSufficiency of Evidence
References
50
Case No. ADJ1078163, ADJ3341185
Significant
Sep 03, 2009

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The court holds that a permanent disability rating under the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable, but any rebuttal evidence concerning Whole Person Impairment (WPI) must be founded within the four corners of the AMA Guides.

AMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingRebuttablePrima Facie EvidenceWhole Person ImpairmentScheduleLabor Code Section 4660SB 899En Banc DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
73
Case No. ADJ1078163, ADJ3341185
En Banc
Sep 03, 2009

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This en banc decision clarifies that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable, but any evidence to rebut the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) component must be based within the four corners of the AMA Guides.

AlmarazGuzmanWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boarden bancprecedentAMA Guides2005 Schedulepermanent disabilityrebuttableprima facie evidence
References
49
Case No. ADJ1735018
En Banc
Jun 03, 2010

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

An en banc decision clarifying the respective roles of the evaluating physician, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), and the disability rater in determining whole person impairment (WPI). The Appeals Board amended the WCJ's decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

AMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPhysician's RoleWCJ's RoleRater's RoleFormal Rating InstructionsSubstantial Medical EvidenceDisability Evaluation UnitNon-Formal RatingsEx Parte Communication
References
32
Case No. ADJ1735018
Significant
Jun 03, 2010

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This en banc decision clarifies the distinct roles of the evaluating physician, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), and the disability rater in determining whole person impairment (WPI) under the AMA Guides, and remands the specific case for reassessment of the permanent disability.

AMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPhysician's RoleWCJ's RoleRater's RoleFormal RatingPermanent DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceDRE Lumbar Category IIPatellofemoral Pain Syndrome
References
33
Case No. ADJ6760596
Regular
May 23, 2018

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior decision regarding applicant Samuel Espinoza's work injury. The Board increased Espinoza's lumbar spine Whole Person Impairment (WPI) from 29% to 45%, based on the agreed medical examiner's alternative rating which was deemed more accurate. Consequently, Espinoza's permanent disability rating was increased from 43% to 57%. The Board also deferred the issue of mileage reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWhole Person Impairmentlumbar spineagreed medical examinerAMA Guidespermanent disabilitysexual dysfunctionurological issues
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 18 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