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. ADJ2073428 (VNO 0465400) ADJ1610465 (VNO 0540972) ADJ3247765 (VNO 00384869)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

JAY ZAVERI vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; Legally Uninsured

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, arguing for a 100% permanent disability rating and challenging the permanent disability start date used for attorney fee commutation. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence to establish total permanent disability, as the applicant was currently employed and medical opinions did not definitively support such a rating. The Board also ruled that the applicant waived arguments regarding the rating of specific injuries by failing to properly object, and that even if considered, separate ratings for back, knee, and plantar fasciitis conditions would not result in a higher award due to fibromyalgia being the primary cause and rating higher. Finally, the Board clarified that the July 2, 2000 date was only relevant to the attorney fee commutation calculation and not to the determination of permanent disability indemnity payments.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Industrial InjuryBack InjuryHip InjuryBilateral Knee InjuryBilateral Foot InjuryBilateral Plantar Fasciitis
References
Case No. ADJ8128282
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

ANGELA EGBIKUADJE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, returning the case for further proceedings. The defendant, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, argued that the applicant's psychiatric injury claim was preempted by the ADA and not proven under Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board found the original decision lacked proper analysis regarding predominant industrial causation and the good faith personnel action defense. Therefore, the case was remanded for further development of the record, including expert medical opinion on these issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAngela EgbikuadjeCalifornia Department of Corrections and RehabilitationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8128282Van Nuys District OfficeReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial cumulative trauma injury
References
Case No. ADJ10079944
Regular
Feb 26, 2019

Robert Fndkyan vs. Opus One Labs, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to a Supplemental Job Displacement Voucher (SJDV). The original decision denied the SJDV due to the absence of a specific Physician's Return-to-Work form. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the employer was sufficiently informed of the applicant's permanent disability status and work restrictions through a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. Therefore, the Board determined that the applicant substantially complied with the requirements and is entitled to the SJDV, prioritizing substance over strict adherence to a particular form.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPhysician's Return-To-Work and Voucher formQualified Medical Evaluation ReportLabor Code section 4658.7(b)permanent and stationary statuspermanent partial disabilityvocational statuswork capacitysubstantial complianceform over substance
References
Case No. ADJ3134805 (BAK 0148440)
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

VELGRACE SMITH vs. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

This case concerns a defendant seeking reconsideration of a decision that awarded a 15% increase in permanent disability indemnity payments. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found the employer failed to offer modified work within 60 days of the applicant's condition becoming permanent and stationary, as required by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ's literal interpretation of the statute would lead to absurd consequences given the retroactive nature of medical findings and delayed service of reports. The Board held the 60-day period begins when the employer has knowledge of both the permanent and stationary status and work restrictions, and remanded the case to determine if the employer's modified work offer remained consistent with updated restrictions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityModified WorkLabor Code Section 4658(d)AggravationCumulative InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary DateWork Restrictions
References
Case No. ADJ12394877
Regular
Dec 14, 2020

SABINA RAMOS vs. GLOBAL FOOD SERVICES, FEDERAL INSURANCE

The applicant was injured and subsequently offered modified work within her restrictions, which she initially performed. However, the applicant then abandoned her employment after suitable modified work was provided by the employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that she was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity due to job abandonment. This denial is based on legal precedent that an employee may be estopped from claiming temporary disability for periods where they refuse or abandon suitable modified work without good cause.

Modified workAbandonment of workTemporary disability indemnityPetition for reconsiderationCredibility determinationsPrimary treating physicianWork restrictionsLabor Code section 4062EstoppelOdd lot doctrine
References
Case No. ADJ10610485
Regular
Mar 30, 2018

FRANCISCO REYNOSO vs. LUSAMERICA FOODS, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the award, changing the start date of temporary disability benefits. Originally awarded from August 25, 2016, the Board revised this to February 16, 2017, as this was the first date medical evidence indicated work restrictions. The Board found insufficient proof that the applicant was terminated for cause, which would have barred benefits, due to contradictory employer testimony and the absence of key witnesses. However, the Board affirmed the original award regarding the continuation of temporary disability benefits.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPerformance Correction NoticeTermination for CauseModified WorkMedical RestrictionsPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorWage LossAt-Will EmployeeProbationary Period
References
Case No. VNO 523244
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

ANGIE JAUREGUI vs. MERCY SOUTHWEST HOSPITAL

This case involves an employer seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for an injured nurse. The employer argued their modified work offer should have reduced the permanent disability award, but the Board denied reconsideration. The Board determined the employer's work offer was not a bona fide modified work offer, and thus did not qualify for the statutory reduction.

Permanent and stationaryMedical-legal reportWork restrictionsModified workAlternative workLabor Code Section 4658(d)Permanent disability awardPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9123534
Regular
Jul 18, 2015

PHILLIP WARD vs. CITY OF FORT BRAGG, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended an award, finding the defendant liable for a 15% increase in permanent disability benefits. This increase is due to the defendant's failure to offer the applicant qualified work within 60 days of his permanent and stationary status, as required by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). While the applicant had retired, the Board found this did not excuse the employer from making a compliant work offer. The amended order clarifies the increase applies only to payments made 60 days after the Qualified Medical Evaluator's permanent and stationary report.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)permanent disability increaseoffer of workmodified workalternative workregular workpermanent and stationary60-day periodretirementCalPERS
References
Case No. ADJ9787852
Regular
Oct 18, 2016

CAROLINE NJOKI vs. 24 HOUR FITNESS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case affirms an award of temporary total disability benefits to an applicant injured while working for 24 Hour Fitness. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the employer failed to provide modified work within the applicant's medical restrictions. The employer's assertion that they offered modified work was contradicted by the applicant's credible testimony, which the Board credited. Therefore, the applicant's wage loss was deemed total, entitling her to ongoing temporary total disability benefits.

Temporary total disabilityModified workMedical restrictionsDriving restrictionCommuteGood faith offerWCJ credibilityHearsay evidenceLabor CodeRebuttal evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,347 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