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. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ10187704, ADJ10924724
Regular
May 17, 2018

STEVEN CASE vs. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to increase applicant's permanent disability rating for bilateral shoulder injury from 9% to 38%. The Board found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) alternative rating, based on strength loss, was substantial medical evidence and properly considered within the AMA Guides. The WCJ erred in applying an overly restrictive interpretation of "complex or extraordinary" cases for deviating from strict AMA Guides ratings. The AME's use of strength loss data from the AMA Guides, even for an age outside the specified range, was permissible under the *Almaraz-Guzman* line of cases when justified by clinical judgment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)permanent disability ratingbilateral shouldersorthopedic AMEAMA GuidesAlmaraz-Guzmanstrength loss index
References
Case No. ADJ360205 (LBO 0384980)
Regular
Aug 05, 2010

Gurdev Malhotra vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES FAIRVIEW; Legally Uninsured, CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's advisory opinion concerning permanent disability rating for grip loss. Defendant argued the WCJ erred by allowing rating for grip loss when range of motion was present, and that the QME's reports did not support grip loss rating. The Board rescinded the WCJ's findings, remanding the case for further proceedings to ensure the WCJ follows the established process for issuing rating instructions based on substantial medical evidence, as clarified in *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. The ultimate determination of permanent disability requires a proper QME opinion and subsequent rating instructions from the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGurdev MalhotraState of California Department of Developmental ServicesLegally UninsuredContract ServicesPermanent Disability RatingGrip LossAMA GuidesQualified Medical EvaluatorQME
References
Case No. ADJ758842 (VNO 0559214)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

JOHN PATCHETT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision to vacate the submission. This action was based on the DEU evaluator's testimony, which revealed deficiencies in the AMEs' reports concerning the AMA Guides. The Board found the applicant waived any objection to this testimony by failing to object at trial, and that the evaluator's expert opinion was permissible per *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. Defendant's objection, though not styled as a motion to strike, sufficiently raised the issues leading to the vacation of the rating.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDEU evaluatorAMA Guidesagreed medical evaluators (AMEs)rating instructionssubstantial evidenceobjective factors of disabilitywhole person impairmentformal rating
References
Case No. ADJ3582743 (STK 0215397)
Regular
Apr 11, 2014

KERI LARSEN vs. MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

This case concerns defendant Modesto Irrigation District's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge erred in using an incorrect impairment number for calculating permanent disability. The Board amended the award to reflect an 18% permanent disability rating, based on the agreed medical evaluator's opinion regarding lateral epicondylitis and decreased grip, not nerve entrapment. The Board also corrected the finding for future medical treatment to the right arm and elbow, aligning with the amended disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardModesto Irrigation DistrictKerri Larsenpermanent disability ratingAMA GuidesAlmarez-Guzmanstraight ratingReport And Recommendation On Petition For ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorAME
References
Case No. ADJ11368246
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

Marta Ubillus vs. One Stop Employment Services, LLC/Vensure Employer Services, Security National Insurance Company, State National Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the valuation of interpreter services. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found that while the defendant did not present rebuttal evidence, the ALJ had substantial evidence to make a determination. The ALJ determined a market rate of $114.97 per hour but noted the lien claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the duration of services on most dates, preventing application of the market rate. Consequently, the statutory rate was applied for those services.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedLien ClaimantInterpreter ServicesMarket RateStatutory RateWCJ ReportSubstantial EvidenceFindings and Award
References
Case No. ADJ8330411
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

LARRY SINGLETARY vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

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
Case No. ADJ7072206
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

MARLON MARTINEZ vs. CPS SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of a 35% permanent disability for the applicant's back and psyche injury. The Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, amending the original award to reflect the correct weekly compensation rate of $264.50, as stipulated by the parties. The employer had contested the permanent disability rating, arguing it was based on an inappropriate medical opinion and should be lower. The applicant's primary contention was the underpayment of weekly permanent disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Opinion EvidenceGuides criteriaWPI ratingWeekly Compensation RateLabor Code §4658(d)
References
Case No. ADJ6820873
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

Thomas Wong vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES/LAPD, TRISTAR 29106 GLENDALE

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
Showing 1-10 of 1,718 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