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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psihoyos v. National Geographic Society

This case concerns a copyright infringement dispute brought by Louis Psihoyos against The National Geographic Society (NGS). Psihoyos alleged that NGS infringed copyrights in his photograph of a dinosaur fossil and an accompanying illustration by publishing similar works in its magazine. NGS moved for summary judgment, arguing the similarities were due to unprotectible elements like common subject matter, or covered by doctrines such as merger and scenes a faire. The court analyzed the substantial similarity of the photographs, illustrations, and overall layout, finding that protectible elements were not substantially similar. Ultimately, the court granted NGS's motion for summary judgment and denied Psihoyos's cross-motion.

Copyright InfringementPhotographyIllustrationSummary JudgmentSubstantial SimilarityMerger DoctrineScenes A FaireIntellectual PropertyArtistic WorksDinosaur Fossil
References
33
Case No. ADJ5744485 ADJ6979008 ADJ6979031
Regular
Sep 16, 2010

BRIAN MENICUCCI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision clarifies that injured employees are not geographically restricted when selecting a physician within a defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). While general treatment under Labor Code section 4600(c) has a reasonable geographic limitation, this restriction does not apply to MPN physicians. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, holding that an employee can choose any MPN physician, regardless of distance, after their initial visit. The case specifically avoided ruling on travel expense reimbursement or injuries sustained during travel to the chosen physician.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNreasonable geographic areaLabor Code section 4600(c)Labor Code section 4616 et seq.Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)Administrative Director Rule 9767.6(e)physician of his or her choicestatutory constructionstatutory omission
References
3
Case No. ADJ7274574
Regular
Mar 25, 2015

REBECCA WADE vs. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's scheduled re-evaluation in Bakersfield was not an unreasonable geographic distance and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyPQME relocationreevaluationunreasonable geographic area
References
5
Case No. ADJ4476010 (SDO 0342658) ADJ4527276 (SDO 0343898)
Regular
Oct 27, 2008

TANIA ESQUIVEL vs. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA SAN DIEGO DETENTION, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved an applicant injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to a medical appointment for prior industrial injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's finding that the motor vehicle accident was a compensable consequence. The WCAB ruled the injury was not compensable due to the excessive distance from the applicant's home and the medical provider, thus exceeding the employer's reasonable geographic risk.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcompensable consequenceindustrial injurymotor vehicle accidentcorrectional officerprimary treating physicianBehavior Pain ServicesLabor Codegoing and coming rulespecial mission
References
3
Case No. ADJ12293355
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

HEIDI MONTERROSO vs. ADVENTIST HEALTH FEATHER RIVER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it sought review of a non-final order changing venue. The WCAB denied the Petition for Removal, finding that the change of venue to Redding was proper. This decision was based on the defendant's timely objection to the original venue, especially considering the destruction of the applicant's employer's facility by wildfire and the geographic distance involved. The WCAB also admonished the applicant's counsel to correctly file petitions for removal, not reconsideration, when addressing non-final orders.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Changing VenueWCAB Rule 10410Labor Code § 5501.5Labor Code § 5501.6timely objectionfinal orderinterlocutory order
References
4
Case No. ADJ9818457
Regular
Aug 07, 2015

MANU TUIVAI vs. LINKS ELECTRICAL SERVICE, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY

The applicant sustained a low back injury and was offered modified work by the employer. The applicant declined the modified work, asserting it was too far and beyond his qualifications. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant declined the modified work for reasons other than physical inability, specifically due to commuting distance and pay concerns, which did not preclude temporary disability benefits. The Board found the commuting distance reasonable given the applicant's electrician profession.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicant Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryElectricianLow Back InjuryModified WorkTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 4658.1Reasonable Commuting DistanceVoluntary Decline of Work
References
2
Case No. ADJ1210556 (AGO 0018589)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWIN MILLER vs. KEEBLER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decisions regarding medical mileage and penalties. The Board found the WCJ failed to properly consider statutory factors in determining a "reasonable geographic area" for the applicant's medical treatment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decisions and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision addressing all outstanding issues, including the definition of a reasonable geographic area for treatment.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical MileageReasonable Geographic AreaLabor Code Section 4600Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)WCJBoltonRamirez
References
2
Case No. ADJ20141319
Regular
Jun 20, 2025

CHARLES FRANKLIN vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

Applicant Charles Franklin sustained a low back injury. Defendant County of San Bernardino filed a petition for reconsideration concerning a scrivener's error in the case number and the geographic reasonableness of the applicant's chosen treating physician, Dr. Nassos. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the case number from ADJ20141320 to ADJ20141319. However, the Board denied the substantive arguments, affirming the original decision that the defendant failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of Dr. Nassos's geographic location for treatment by not presenting evidence of a suitable alternative closer to the applicant's residence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5909TIMELY ACTIONELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMTRANSMISSION DATEBUSINESS DAYNOTICE OF TRANSMISSIONREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONSCRIVENER'S ERROR
References
5
Case No. ADJ7688956
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

SHARON FRINK vs. SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded prior orders, and returned the case for further proceedings. The issue was whether the applicant must attend a re-evaluation with the same Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) after he moved his office a short distance. The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.3(j) requires parties to utilize the same QME for subsequent disputes if possible. They clarified that Administrative Director Rule 34(b) regarding the QME's office location applies only to initial evaluations, not re-evaluations. Therefore, the applicant's refusal to travel a short distance for re-evaluation was not grounds for a new panel QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Re-evaluationLabor Code Section 4062.3(j)Administrative Director Rule 34(b)Administrative Director Rule 36(d)Medical Office LocationUnavailable QMECompel Attendance
References
9
Case No. ADJ532181 (SFO 0438716) ADJ250509 (SFO 0242560) ADJ6545137
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

MICHAEL THOMAS, vs. SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Permissibly Self-Insured,

This case involved an applicant seeking treatment from a highly specialized surgeon, Dr. Matsen, located in Seattle, for a complex shoulder revision. The original decision denied authorization for Dr. Matsen, deeming Seattle outside a reasonable geographic area, and excluded a crucial report from the applicant's treating physician, Dr. Osborn. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, admitting Dr. Osborn's report, which strongly supported Dr. Matsen's expertise and the inadequacy of local Bay Area surgeons for this complex case. Based on the applicant's medical history and the availability of specialized treatment, the Board reversed the original decision, finding Dr. Matsen to be within a reasonable geographic area.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable geographic areaTreating surgeonAdministrative Director Rule 9780Labor Code section 4600Orthopedic surgeonTotal shoulder replacementRevision surgeryMedical historyPhysician competency
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 71 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