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. SRO 0116034
Regular
Jul 05, 2007

ELENORA ROBINSON vs. RAPISTAN SYSTEMS, FIREMAN'S FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a trial date. This denial was based on the principle that a final adjudication of the applicant's Labor Code section 132a claim had already occurred and all subsequent appeals were exhausted. Furthermore, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to reopen a section 132a claim due to statutory time limitations, as the petition to reopen was filed more than five years after the date of injury.

Labor Code section 132aPetition to ReopenOrder Vacating Trial DateWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardfinal adjudicationjurisdictionarbitrarycapriciousPetition for Reconsiderationres judicata
References
Case No. GOL 0099368
Regular
Sep 18, 2007

JOSE ALBERTO vs. ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding the termination of temporary disability payments. The Board reaffirmed its prior decision that payments were limited to 104 weeks within a two-year period as per Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). The Board found no merit in the applicant's arguments that the interpretation was contrary to legislative intent or resulted in absurdity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Waste IndustriesInc.AIG Claim ServicesTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)104 Compensable WeeksAggregate Temporary Disability PaymentsReconsideration DeniedLegislative Intent
References
Case No. SFO 0491230
Significant
Jun 02, 2008

Scott Boughner, Applicant vs. COMP USA, INC.; and ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board held that the applicant failed to rebut the presumptive validity of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS), reversing the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding and returning the case for rating under the 2005 PDRS.

Permanent Disability Rating SchedulePDRSLabor Code Section 4660En Banc DecisionCosta v. Hardy DiagnosticAdministrative DirectorArbitrary and CapriciousRulemaking RecordEmpirical DataRAND Institute
References
Case No. GRO 0033790
Regular
Feb 04, 2008

JOSEPH RANGEL vs. LASH CONSTRUCTION, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a challenge to the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule's diminished future earning capacity factors, specifically referencing the en banc decision in *Boughner v. Comp USA, Inc.* The Board rescinded the previous award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, pending the *Boughner* decision. This ensures that any new decision will be consistent with the Appeals Board's ruling on the validity of these rating factors.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderAlbert RivasExpert Witness TestimonyDiminished Future Earning CapacityBoughner v. Comp USAInc.En Banc DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStipulated Industrial Injury
References
Case No. SFO 0491230
En Banc
Jun 02, 2008

Scott Boughner vs. COMP USA, INC.; Zurich North America

The Appeals Board held that the applicant did not meet his burden of proving the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) was invalid, reversing the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

PDRSLabor Code section 4660presumptive validityarbitrary and capriciousempirical dataRAND Institutediminished future earning capacitycrosswalk studyrulemaking recordWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ11110973
Regular
May 23, 2025

Jorge Aragon vs. El Super, Safety National Casualty Corporation, Tristar Risk Management

The applicant, Jorge Aragon, sought reconsideration of a decision denying him a second payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP). The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found him ineligible based on Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second RTWSP payment if the subsequent injury occurs before receiving the previous supplement. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant's remedy to challenge the validity of Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board, as the rule is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The Board also clarified its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite RTWSP's contention.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48invalid regulationarbitrary and capriciousArticle XIV section 4Administrative Procedures Act
References
Case No. LAO 0803921
Regular
Mar 26, 2008

Amelia Acosta vs. Alpine Electronics of America, Mitsui Sumitomo Marine Management, Tokio Marine Management, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order for attorney fees against the defendants. The Board found that the administrative law judge failed to provide the defendants with proper due process and that the circumstances warranted finding the imposition of sanctions unjust. Consequently, the petition for removal was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for Attorney FeesWCJLien ClaimantCompromise & ReleaseIndustrial InjuryDue ProcessArbitrary and Capricious
References
Case No. GRO 0032446 GRO 0032447
Regular
Jul 07, 2008

VICTOR PONCE vs. ALL SEASON FLOWERS, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's decision denying a cumulative trauma injury claim and awarding 13% permanent disability for a back injury. The Appeals Board found that the applicant's vocational expert's testimony regarding diminished future earning capacity was not substantial evidence, as it did not properly address or rebut the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board specifically cited *Boughner v. Comp USA, Inc.*, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the 2005 PDRS was arbitrary or capricious, thus upholding its presumptive validity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability2005 PDRSRebuttalVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earning CapacityBoughner v. Comp USA
References
Case No. ADJ2117331 (OAK 0261803)
Regular
May 31, 2017

Janice Payne vs. Federal Express, BROADSPIRE

This case involves Janice Payne seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying her weight loss program extension. The WCJ initially ruled he lacked jurisdiction due to prior Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR) denials, which were not appealed. However, the applicant argued a 2003 Compromise and Release agreement designated Dr. Mandel as the ultimate medical arbiter for treatment disputes, superseding UR/IMR. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding the contractual agreement to use Dr. Mandel remains enforceable despite subsequent UR/IMR legislation. The case is remanded to the trial level to consider Dr. Mandel's opinions on the weight loss program's medical necessity.

Compromise and ReleaseMedical ArbiterUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewWeight Loss ProgramContractual AgreementJurisdictionSubstantial JusticeStipulationMedical Treatment Dispute
References
Case No. ADJ2942075 (OAK 0345156)
Regular
Jul 30, 2010

GREGORY REES vs. CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was based on a non-final interlocutory order regarding the disqualification of a PQME. The WCAB, on its own motion, granted removal and intends to sanction the defendant's counsel for filing a frivolous and bad-faith petition for reconsideration. The Board found the argument for PQME disqualification lacked merit, as applicant communications during examination are permitted. The defendant's counsel will be ordered to pay a $500 sanction unless good cause is shown to the contrary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPQME disqualificationex parte communicationLabor Code section 5310removalsanctionsfrivolous litigationbad faith action4062.3
References
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