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. ADJ1177048
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant to allow for a more thorough study of the issues raised and to permit the filing of amicus curiae briefs by interested parties.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 ScheduleReconsiderationAmicus Curiae BriefsThreshold IssueFinal OrderEn Banc DecisionRebuttalPermanent Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779)
En Banc
Apr 06, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board grants petitions for reconsideration from both the applicant and the defendant to further study the issues raised regarding the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) and allows for the submission of amicus curiae briefs.

DFEC2005 Schedulediminished future earning capacityrebutting DFECthreshold issuereconsiderationen banc decisionamicus curiae briefjudicial noticelegislative history
References
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Mario Almaraz vs. Environmental Recovery Services (a.k.a. ENVIROSERVE), State Compensation Insurance Fund Joyce Guzman vs. Milpitas Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Keenan & Associates, Adjusting Agent

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration in two consolidated cases, Almaraz and Guzman, to study the issues raised in a petition and allows for the filing of amicus curiae briefs by any interested person or entity.

WCABReconsiderationAmicus BriefsEn Banc DecisionAMA GuidesPermanent DisabilityThreshold IssueRebuttalFinal OrderInterlocutory Decision
References
Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426)
Significant
Apr 14, 2009

Lawrence Weiner, Applicant vs Ralphs Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, allows the submission of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional issues arising from the legislative repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, which pertains to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

VRMALabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationrepealstatutory rightvested rightsghost statutessavings clauseen bancamicus briefs
References
Case No. ADJ347040
En Banc
Apr 14, 2009

LAWRENCE WEINER vs. RALPHS COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the legal issues presented by the defendant's petition, specifically concerning the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, and has ordered the allowance of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional questions.

Amicus briefsEn banc decisionVocational rehabilitationVRMARepeal of statuteLabor Code section 139.5JurisdictionRetroactive benefitsFindings and AwardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
En Banc
Apr 06, 2009

MARIO ALMARAZ, JOYCE GUZMAN vs. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration in two consolidated cases to address the rebuttal of the AMA Guides in the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities and permitted the filing of amicus briefs to aid in its deliberations.

Amicus briefsReconsiderationEn banc decisionThreshold issueAMA GuidesPermanent disabilityRebuttalFinal orderInterlocutory orderLegislative history
References
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182)
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding Milton Guzman sustained an industrial psychological injury. The defendant, Zurich North America, argued the applicant did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board will allow supplemental briefing on whether the applicant met the six-month employment duration requirement for psychiatric claims, as this issue was not fully decided by the WCJ. The decision will address this specific issue before issuing a final ruling.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix month employment requirementindustrial injuryFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationsupplemental briefingWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ3183513 (SJO 0248396)
Regular
Mar 21, 2012

PAULO MUNOZ vs. BARRACOS CONSTRUCTION, VIRGINIA SURETY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration because the underlying order, which denied reassignment of the judge, was not a final order subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900. The WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration as procedurally improper. Treating the joint petition as a request for removal under Labor Code section 5310, the WCAB denied the parties' request to reassign the case to the previous trial judge, citing the pending disciplinary matter and the lack of demonstrated prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalLabor Code section 5310Labor Code section 5900final orderinterim ordersprocedural ordervocational judgejoint petition
References
Case No. ADJ8470179 ADJ8501826
Regular
Apr 18, 2017

CARITINA REYES vs. ANAJET, INC., THE HARTFORD

Lien claimants Southland Spine & Rehabilitation Medical Center and New Age Translations sought reconsideration of a decision disallowing their liens. They argued the judge improperly admitted evidence and failed to consider their trial briefs. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration. The Board rescinded the original order, finding the judge failed to consider the trial briefs. The case is returned for further proceedings to address the lien claimants' claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderMedical Provider NetworkKnight v. United Parcel ServicePanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAgreed Medical ExaminerDue processWCAB Rule 10629
References
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
Showing 1-10 of 100 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