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. VNO 348369 VNO 348370 VNO 348371 VNO 348372
Regular
Feb 13, 2008

RUBEN C. GONZALEZ vs. L.A.C.M.T.A.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied LACMTA's Petition for Removal, adopting the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report. The WCJ recommended denial because LACMTA failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and the medical record needed further development regarding the applicant's new diabetes diagnosis and its potential industrial relation. Therefore, the petition was formally denied by the WCAB.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLACMTAMedical Record DevelopmentDiabetes DiagnosisIndustrially Related ConditionReasonable Medical ProbabilityPetition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843Significant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ3623428 (MON 0334798) ADJ1196230 (MON 0334799)
Regular
Feb 08, 2010

FREDERICK DOMINGUE vs. CEDAR SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant Cedar Sinai Medical Center sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) for $99,000, settling applicant Frederick Domingue's claims for various injuries, including psyche, respiratory, and cancer. Defendant argued CMS approval was a condition precedent, applicant failed to disclose terminal brain cancer, and the WCJ abused discretion due to applicant's death post-execution but pre-approval. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence CMS approval was required given the C&R's terms and CMS guidelines, and that the WCAB has discretion to approve a C&R even after an applicant's death. Furthermore, the Board found no sufficient evidence of nondisclosure of a separate terminal brain cancer condition.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideCMS approvalcondition precedentindustrial injurypsycherespiratory systemspine
References
Case No. ADJ8501790
Regular
Jul 29, 2015

Kelly Chase vs. St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior finding of industrial injury for a professional hockey player against the St. Louis Blues. The WCAB found insufficient connection to California for jurisdiction, citing the player's limited games in the state compared to his overall career. This decision followed the precedent set in *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*, which requires a legitimate and substantial connection to the state for jurisdiction. The WCAB concluded that 21 games out of 485 did not meet this standard for a cumulative injury claim.

WCABSt. Louis Blues Hockey ClubFederal Insurance CompanyADJ8501790Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationcumulative industrial injuryprofessional hockey playersubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationssubstantial medical evidence
References
Case No. ADJ11320525
Regular
Jul 01, 2019

LOURDES OCAMPO vs. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the initial decision, finding the orthopedic QME's opinions did not constitute substantial evidence. Applicant contended the QME's opinions were inconsistent with medical literature regarding the acceleration of pre-existing conditions. The Board agreed that the QME seemed to conflate causing arthritis with aggravating a pre-existing condition. Therefore, the Board rescinded the original findings and returned the case for further development of the record, specifically regarding the extent of applicant's walking and a clearer medical opinion on causation.

AOE/COEQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order (F&O)substantial evidenceorthopedichip arthritisdegenerative joint diseaseindustrial causationacceleration of condition
References
Case No. ADJ1577836
Regular
May 04, 2009

JESUS GAVINO-REMIGIO vs. STRATUS SERVICES GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured when stepping on a metal hook, sustaining an admitted industrial injury to his right foot. The applicant sought reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied findings that the injury also affected his internal systems (diabetes), eyes, and psyche, along with associated disability. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant's medical expert's opinion on non-industrial diabetes causation to be substantial evidence, while deeming the applicant's medical experts' opinions insufficient. A dissenting commissioner argued the applicant's medical evidence sufficiently supported industrial causation for diabetes aggravation, warranting reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryright footinternal systemseyespsychediabetes mellituspermanent disabilitytemporary disabilityGerald Markovitz M.D.
References
Case No. ADJ7041541
Regular
Nov 25, 2015

LINDA CASAVANT vs. SIERRA MARKET, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a previous dismissal order, denying a petition to reopen a case for an unspecified claim by the deceased worker's grandson. The petition sought to set aside a prior dismissal so the grandson could obtain counsel and assert a claim. The majority adopted the WCJ's report, finding no basis to disturb the dismissal. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing the WCAB should have approved a pending compromise and release agreement executed before the applicant's death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryMeat WrapperVascular ProblemsQualified Medical EvaluatorApplicant DeathHeir at LawWCJ Order Dismissing Case
References
Case No. ADJ2582936
Regular
May 20, 2011

MAYRA ENRIQUEZ vs. NOUVEUR DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision to deny compensation for the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. Applicant, employed for less than six months, argued her injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Board found that catching her hand in a machine was a foreseeable, ordinary risk of her job, not an extraordinary event. Therefore, Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by an extraordinary condition, barred recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementsudden and extraordinaryregular and routinemachine operatorindustrial injurypetition for reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ401125 (LAO 0843257)
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

ORETHA BOYD vs. SERVICE CRAFT LOGISTICS, COLONIAL RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse the finding of temporary total disability and the need for future medical treatment for the applicant's heart condition and hypertension. The Board found insufficient substantial medical evidence to support that these pre-existing conditions, aggravated by work stressors, caused the claimed period of disability. Applicant's prior carpal tunnel injury and its ongoing treatment were identified as the primary cause of her absence from work. The award was modified to remove temporary disability and future medical treatment for the heart/hypertension, and attorney fees were adjusted accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOretha BoydService Craft LogisticsColonial RiskAmended Findings and Awardindustrial injuryheart conditionhypertensiondiabetestemporary total disability
References
Case No. ADJ324819 (SAL 0120615) ADJ3483975 (SAL 0119560)
Regular
Jul 20, 2010

KATHERINE GONZALES vs. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case concerns an injured worker's attempt to continue treatment with her physician, Dr. Klassen, after he left the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The defendant argued that the worker's condition did not meet the criteria for continued treatment with a non-MPN physician under Labor Code section 4616.2. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration because there was insufficient medical evidence to determine if the worker's condition qualified. The WCAB rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings, ordering the trial judge to obtain a report from Dr. Klassen regarding the necessity of continued treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMPNMedical Provider NetworkLabor Code section 4616.2continuity of treatmentprimary treating physicianacute conditionserious chronic conditionterminal illnessauthorization
References
Case No. ADJ10488034
Regular
May 07, 2018

GILDO BEITIA vs. CITY OF OAKLAND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for removal, upholding an administrative law judge's order that limited the defendant's subpoenas for medical records. The defendant argued this order denied due process and improperly restricted discovery into non-industrial conditions affecting the applicant's alleged injuries. The WCAB found the subpoenas were impermissibly overbroad under existing precedent, which limits discovery to matters directly relevant to the claimed injuries. A dissenting opinion argued the limitations were too restrictive, especially for conditions like weight gain and hypertension which can have numerous causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashCompensable Consequence InjuriesDiscovery LimitationsPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeOverbroad SubpoenaDue Process
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,156 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