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. ADJ6955370
Regular
Nov 06, 2014

JOHN DELVA vs. ANDREW INTERNATIONAL aka ADVANCED TECH SECURITY, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding industrial injury to the applicant's right ankle. This decision followed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, arguing against the ankle injury finding. The WCAB gave significant weight to the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) final opinion, which, after further review and deposition, concluded the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his ankle. Consequently, the WCAB found no industrial injury to any body part and awarded nothing to the applicant.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDINDUSTRIAL INJURYRIGHT ANKLEAGREED MEDICAL EVALUATORCONTINUOUS TRAUMASPECIFIC TRAUMARECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDWCJSUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
References
0
Case No. ADJ9210498
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

ELEANOR DEFRANCO vs. MONTEREY FISH COMPANY, ENSTAR (US) INC., dba ENSTAR ADMINISTRATORS FOR SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award that found industrial injury to applicant's right ankle, right shoulder, and back, but not her right knee. The WCAB rescinded the finding of industrial injury to the back, while otherwise affirming the prior decision. Specifically, the WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained industrial injury to her right ankle and right shoulder, and that medical treatment for her right knee is compensable to relieve the effects of the industrial injuries. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning for these decisions, including the application of the *Braewood* principle for treating the non-industrial knee condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEleanor DefrancoMonterey Fish CompanyEnstarSeabright Insurance CompanyIndustrial InjuryRight AnkleRight ShoulderRight KneeBack Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ417505 (STK 173008)
Regular
Oct 07, 2008

MARSHA CRISWELL vs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award of left ankle surgery for applicant Marsha Criswell. The Board found no substantial medical evidence connecting Criswell's current ankle condition to her 2000 industrial injury, noting the ankle injury resolved and a new injury occurred in 2005. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for industrial causation of the current ankle problem.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical CausationIndustrial InjuryLeft Ankle SurgeryAgreed Medical ExaminerTreating PhysicianPreponderance of the EvidenceReasonable Medical ProbabilityLay Testimony
References
8
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ2126841 (LAO 0848423)
Regular
Oct 23, 2014

ESPERANZA LUCIA MELENDEZ vs. KELLERMEYER BUILDING SERVICES LLC, ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Board reconsidered a WCJ's award of home health care for an applicant injured in 2004, finding the defendants' arguments regarding IMR and authorization rules inapplicable due to the injury date. While affirming the need for home health care supported by medical opinions, the Board remanded the case to determine the specific scope and amount of such services, distinguishing them from non-industrial conditions. The Board reversed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's right ankle injury was industrially related due to a lack of substantial medical evidence and applicant testimony. Therefore, the award is affirmed in part, with the home health care scope deferred and the ankle injury deemed non-industrial.

Independent Medical ReviewLabor Code section 4610.5home health caremedical treatmentsection 4600prescriptionqualified medical evaluatoradmissiblehearsaycompensable consequence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foulton v. Martec Industries

The claimant, a laborer for Martec Industries, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained on June 7, 2006. Martec and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, citing the claimant's history of prior back injuries in 1998 and 2000. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, concluding the June 7, 2006 incident constituted an accidental work-related aggravation of prior injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the June 7, 2006 incident caused a new disability. Evidence showed the claimant had experienced chronic back pain since 1998, and physicians attributed his disability primarily to preexisting conditions. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. ADJ2697898
Regular
Mar 06, 2013

ROBERT WALKER vs. SISKIYOU FOREST PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, THE SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFIT TRUST FUND

This case involves a Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF) claim where the applicant sustained industrial injuries to his left knee and right ankle, resulting in incontinence. The Board affirmed the finding of 41% permanent disability for the subsequent injury, finding the applicant eligible for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code § 4751(a) due to corresponding prior and subsequent injuries to opposite limbs. The Board amended the award to specify that the attorney's fee of 15% is calculated on the SIBTF weekly payments, not commuted as a lump sum upfront, to comply with statutory prohibitions. The Court also addressed apportionment, pre-existing disability, and the unreliability of stipulated percentages when SIBTF was not a party.

Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4751Industrial InjuryPre-existing DisabilityLabor-DisablingOpposite and Corresponding MemberCommutation of BenefitsVocational Expert
References
3
Case No. ADJ1970560 (OAK 0344240)
Regular
Mar 09, 2016

VAZGEN MANAS vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, as administrator of the SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns a credit sought by the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) for permanent disability advances paid to the applicant. The SIBTF argued that its liability for combined permanent disability should be calculated under Labor Code section 4751, which limits liability to the difference between the combined disability and the disability from the subsequent injury alone. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board agreed, reversing the prior finding that allowed a credit under section 4753 for the employer's payments. The Board clarified that section 4753 applies to payments for preexisting disability, not the subsequent industrial injury, and thus SIBTF's credit is limited by section 4751.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751Labor Code section 4753permanent disability advancespreexisting permanent disabilitysubsequent industrial injurycombined permanent disabilitycreditWCJFindings of Fact
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2003

Coku v. Millar Elevator Industries, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint against Millar Elevator Industries, Inc. The injured plaintiff, a maintenance worker, allegedly sustained injuries when he fell from a stepladder in a service elevator that suddenly dropped. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, despite the plaintiffs establishing the necessary elements (event ordinarily indicating negligence, defendant's exclusive control, and no plaintiff contribution). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment, reinstated the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs a new trial against Millar Elevator Industries, Inc. Additionally, testimony regarding an experiment with the stepladder was deemed inadmissible for the new trial.

Personal InjuryNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturElevator AccidentStepladder FallJury InstructionsExclusive ControlNew TrialAdmissibility of EvidenceAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. ADJ9239010, ADJ9471758, ADJ9617675
Regular
May 04, 2015

Richard Sullivan vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied industrial injuries to his right ankle, left knee, and psyche. The applicant's primary contention was an error in the date of injury for his left knee claim, arguing it should be February 6, 2014, not February 16, 2014. While the Board granted reconsideration to amend the finding to include both dates, they affirmed the overall decision denying compensability for the knee injury, as it was deemed consequential to a previously non-industrial injury. Therefore, all claimed industrial injuries were ultimately found not compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of FactIndustrial InjuryConsequential InjuryDate of InjuryWCJApplicantDefendantSelf-Insured
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,696 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