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

Santos v. American Museum of Natural History

Guaquin Garcia died after a scaffold fall during renovations at a building leased by the American Museum of Natural History. His estate sued the Museum and the general contractor for wrongful death. The Museum moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked Labor Law liability as it didn't own, contract for, or supervise the work. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but on appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found the Museum, as a lessee, was not liable under Labor Law § 240, having neither contracted for nor supervised the renovation work, and thus lacked authority over safety measures.

Wrongful DeathScaffold AccidentLabor Law Section 240Summary Judgment AppealPremises LiabilityLessee LiabilityRenovation ProjectWorksite SafetyAppellate CourtBuilding Owner Responsibility
References
2
Case No. ADJ9664450
Regular
Jun 05, 2015

PATRICIA AGUILAR vs. HARRIS RANCH BEEF COMPANY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal regarding discovery of her past sexual history in a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury due to sexual harassment. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the applicant's past sexual history is constitutionally protected and that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for discovery under Labor Code section 3208.4. The Board limited discovery to medical records relevant to the applicant's psychiatric history, allowing the defendant to refile a petition for further discovery upon a proper showing of good cause after a medical evaluation. This decision aims to balance the applicant's right to privacy with the defendant's need for relevant information concerning causation and apportionment.

Labor Code section 3208.4Petition for RemovalFindings of Fact and OrderDepose applicantSexual harassmentSexual assaultMolestationGood causePrivacyPsyche injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Baranek

The defendant appealed his conviction for burglary and robbery, arguing he was denied his right to confront witnesses and present a defense. The trial court had precluded cross-examination of the complainant regarding her psychiatric history, denied the introduction of her psychiatric records, and barred expert testimony on her condition. The complainant, with a 20-year psychiatric history, exhibited persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations, particularly about people breaking into her home. The appellate court agreed, finding that the cumulative effect of these errors denied the defendant a fair trial. The court ruled that the jury should have been made aware of the complainant's psychiatric history to assess the reliability of her testimony, especially given the nature of her delusions, and therefore reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial.

Criminal LawRight to ConfrontationCross-ExaminationPsychiatric HistoryExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityMental IllnessFair TrialEvidentiary RulesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. ADJ3288464 (LAO 0772800)
Regular
Mar 27, 2009

NACHUM SAGI vs. OLYMPIC HOLDING CORP., CIGA by its servicing facility BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the applicant's petition. The denial was based on the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony and reported medical history inconsistent and not credible. Specifically, the Board found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion did not constitute substantial evidence due to the flawed history provided by the applicant. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceVargas v. Atascadero State HospitalLabor Code section 5313CredibilityConflicting HistoriesMedical FileStipulated Award
References
2
Case No. LAO 801322
Regular
May 23, 2008

O.C. MARSHALL (Deceased) JENNIFER MARSHALL (Widow) vs. ARCO/BRITISH PETROLEUM; ESIS

This case concerns a widow's appeal of a denial of workers' compensation benefits for her husband's death. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, finding the death was due to natural causes and not his employment as a pipe fitter for Arco/British Petroleum. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the denial, finding the applicant's medical expert's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to an inaccurate history and incomplete analysis of the decedent's medical records and family history.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEatherosclerotic diseasehypertension
References
0
Case No. ADJ11241479
Regular
May 13, 2019

ANA AYALA PAVON vs. CROCKERS THE WELL DRESSED FRANK, INC., MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant did not prove she suffered an industrial injury. The applicant's sole medical evidence from Dr. Flores was deemed unsubstantial because it lacked proper notification to the defendant and relied on an unidentified interpreter for the applicant's history and psychological testing. Furthermore, the applicant's failure to testify prevented the court from assessing her credibility, which is crucial for evaluating the history provided to the doctor. The applicant also failed to properly designate a primary treating physician and present evidence at trial.

Cumulative trauma claimorthopedic injurypsychiatric injuryrestaurant workerprimary treating physician (PTP)report of Dr. Floresmandatory settlement conferencePetition for Reconsiderationburden of proofsubstantial medical evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ8550821, ADJ9443562
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

ESMERALDA REYNOSO vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This case concerns a worker's compensation claim for psychiatric injury due to continuous trauma from 1998-2012. The defendant sought to overturn the finding that the injury arose out of employment, arguing the medical expert's reports lacked substantial evidence due to alleged inconsistencies and incomplete history. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding the expert's opinions on industrial causation were sufficiently consistent and based on an adequate medical history. The Board found the defendant's arguments failed to undermine the expert's conclusions regarding predominant industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Substantial Medical EvidenceContinuous Trauma InjuryPsychiatric InjuryCausationIndustrial FactorsPersonnel Actions
References
0
Case No. ADJ7352906
Regular
Jul 10, 2012

ANA PEREZ vs. PALOMINO JANITORIAL SERVICES, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST COMP INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a "take nothing" finding, upholding the WCJ's decision that applicant Ana Perez failed to prove an industrial injury. The WCJ found applicant's testimony not credible due to inconsistent reporting of the injury date, mechanism, and prior medical history. The medical evidence, including a PQME report, concluded no reasonable evidence of an industrial injury existed, citing inconsistent history and denial of trauma in contemporaneous medical records. Therefore, applicant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an industrial injury.

ReconsiderationWCABWCJcredibility determinationamended claimmechanism of injuryinconsistent historyGarden Grove Hospitaldenies traumafibromyalgia
References
1
Case No. ADJ3491750
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

MARK RIDER vs. RHO BETA CORPORATION, dba BOB'S MARKET, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the WCJ erred in failing to apportion 96% of the applicant's bilateral shoulder disability to non-industrial causes. Dr. Miller's opinions on apportionment were deemed unclear and contradictory regarding the applicant's employment history and the extent of pre-existing conditions. Consequently, the Board rescinded the previous Findings and Award and returned the matter for further development of the medical record on apportionment. The parties and WCJ must clarify the applicant's employment history before any physician can accurately apply Labor Code section 4663.

Cumulative TraumaApportionmentPermanent DisabilityMedical OpinionWorkers' Compensation JudgeReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 4663Panel QMEDegenerative Disease
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06411 [199 AD3d 1214]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Urdiales v. Durite Concepts Inc/Durite USA

Claimant Jose Urdiales appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his benefits for respiratory problems allegedly due to an occupational disease from epoxy exposure. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, crediting the employer's testimony over the claimant's regarding his work activities. Medical opinions supporting the claimant's condition were based on his disputed work history. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings on witness credibility and rejection of medical evidence based on an inaccurate work history were supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseRespiratory IssuesEpoxy ExposureChemical ExposureCausationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsClaim DenialAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 612 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