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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ7715497
Regular
Jan 17, 2015

SUDJAI SUKSAMRARN (Deceased) TUENJAI SUKSAMRARN (Widow) vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning an earlier decision that barred Edward Steinbrecher from testifying as an expert witness. The Appeals Board found that while Steinbrecher's prior representation of the applicant in a third-party action raised questions about his impartiality, this affected the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The judge erred by disallowing testimony solely because the expert was not deemed "disinterested," as this is not a legal requirement for expert qualification. Therefore, Steinbrecher is now permitted to testify as an expert witness.

Petition for RemovalExpert Witness TestimonyDisinterested WitnessAdmissibilityWeight of EvidenceThird Party CreditIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitQualified ExpertPrior Representation
References
Case No. ADJ2671394 (STK 0163239)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

COTTAGE BAKERY vs. MCDONALD

The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order regarding calling an expert witness was not a final order. However, the Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's previous order. This action was based on the finding that Evidence Code section 776 does not permit an applicant to call an opposing party's expert witness during their case-in-chief. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalEvidence Code section 776adverse witnessexpert witnessfinal orderinterlocutory orderdiscoveryvocational rehabilitation expert
References
Case No. RDG 0095368; RDG 0095369; RDG 0095573; RDG 0126270
Regular
Sep 25, 2007

HENRY PHILLIPE vs. GOTTSCHALKS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow reimbursement for the applicant's vocational expert fees, reversing the WCJ's decision. The Board found it reasonable for the applicant to hire his own vocational expert to rebut the defendant's expert, especially given the passage of time since the original vocational feasibility report. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant's attorney for the $1,075.00 vocational expert cost.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationExpert Witness FeesVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Qualified Rehabilitation Representative (QRR)LeBoeuf argumentAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Permanent DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ4669912 (VNO 0530425) ADJ1143446 (VNO 0553298)
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

CLAUDIA ARIZMENDI vs. CLEUGH'S FROZEN FOODS, PACIFIC COMEPNSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the allowable reimbursement rate for medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration due to a discrepancy between the administrative law judge's (WCJ) original award and the testimony of the defendant's expert witness. The WCJ's award was based on an incorrect calculation of the expert's testimony, which the WCAB corrected to reflect the expert's stated daily allowable rate. Consequently, the WCAB amended the Findings and Award to reimburse the lien claimant at the higher rate of $86.72 per day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeExpert WitnessReimbursement RateAcupuncture Procedure CodePhysical Therapy CodeBill Review Expert
References
Case No. ADJ2203036 (SAC 0198508) ADJ4156707 (SAC 0224575)
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

SANDI ODA vs. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a dispute over the deposition of Dr. Michael Kasman, who began an evaluation of the applicant but never completed it. The applicant sought to quash the deposition notice, citing due process, privacy, attorney work product, and the fact that Dr. Kasman was withdrawn as their expert. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal solely to limit the scope of the deposition. The Board amended the discovery order to clarify that Dr. Kasman can only be deposed as a percipient witness regarding his attempted examination, not as a medical expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterim Discovery OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceMotion to QuashDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney Work Product PrivilegePercipient WitnessCumulative Injury
References
Case No. ADJ7761748
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

JOSE VARGAS vs. WEST COAST LIQUIDATORS, INC., dba BIG LOTS STORES, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the recoverability of vocational expert costs and affirmed the applicant's 50% permanent disability rating. It held that the costs of vocational expert Robert Stoneburner's reports are recoverable, even if his opinions weren't found to be substantial evidence, as long as the expert was qualified and the costs were reasonable and necessary. The WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant was given significant weight, and the court found no basis to reject it. The case was remanded to determine the precise amount of recoverable expert costs.

Vocational expertPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent disabilityReimbursementLabor Code section 5811Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial evidenceExpert witness
References
Case No. ADJ3533537 (VNO 0556925)
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

Richard Varela vs. Morley Group, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award of $2,737.50 for an expert witness's trial testimony, clarifying that such expenses are permissible costs under Labor Code section 5811. The Board held that the expert's testimony regarding the necessity of home health care services was relevant to the lien claimants' burden of proof, even though the primary injury claim was ultimately unsuccessful. This decision distinguishes between medical-legal expenses and trial witness costs, allowing for the latter when reasonably incurred for essential elements of a lien claim. The Board found the expert's testimony necessary for the lien claimants to establish all elements of their case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings of Fact and OrderLabor Code section 5811lien claimantshome health care servicesexpert testimonytrial testimonyreasonableness and necessityinjury AOE/COEmedical-legal expenses
References
Case No. ADJ4076471 (SFO 0495510)
Regular
Jan 21, 2008

BRIGITTE SCHRODT vs. SHORTRIDGE YOUNG DENTAL LABORATORY, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board grants removal, rescinding orders closing discovery and denying defendant's motion to add an expert witness. The case is returned to the trial level.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityRebuttal WitnessDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceRemoval PetitionSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAgreed Medical ExaminerCumulative Trauma InjuryExpert Witness Designation
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,100 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