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. AD J6659170
Regular
Mar 25, 2016

JOSE VIRAMONTES vs. MARBORG INDUSTRIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant, ManagedMed Inc., seeking reconsideration of a decision that disallowed its $\$13,032.00$ lien. The original judge found the applicant sustained industrial orthopedic injuries but not a psychiatric injury. ManagedMed argued the psychiatric injury was a compensable consequence and the defendant did not properly deny it. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report and reasoning that the lien claimant, standing in the applicant's shoes, failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that industrial events predominantly caused the alleged psychiatric injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial injuryPsychiatric injuryOrthopedic injuryCompensable consequenceLabor Code section 5402Burden of proofPreponderance of evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ1315350 (VNO 0557111)
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

LINDA KAMBOW vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by an inmate laborer for orthopedic and psychiatric injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reimbursement to Hepps Pharmacy for medications, as no prescription was provided. The Board also reversed an award to Southern California Mental Health Associates for psychiatric treatment, ruling that inmate psychiatric injuries are not compensable under Labor Code section 3208.3(j). The Board found that the psychiatric injury was a consequence of the industrial orthopedic injury, and thus not a compensable independent non-industrial condition requiring treatment to relieve orthopedic effects.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric injuryLabor Code 3208.3(j)Inmate laborerIndustrial orthopedic injuryNon-industrial psychiatric treatmentPrimary treating physicianSubstantial medical evidenceCompromise and Release AgreementLien trial
References
4
Case No. ADJ9041984 ADJ9040577
Regular
Dec 21, 2018

ISABEL VALENCIA vs. FIFTH AND PACIFIC COMPANIES, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.

This case involves applicant Isabel Valencia's claim for psychiatric injury stemming from a previously stipulated orthopedic injury. The defendant contended the psychiatric injury was not work-related, arguing it was a consequence of the physical injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that a "compensable consequence" injury, like a psychiatric condition resulting from an industrial orthopedic injury, is industrially related. The Board also found it appropriate to further develop the record regarding applicant's disability, as the current psychiatric condition prevents accurate assessment.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDFIFTH AND PACIFIC COMPANIESHARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYBROADSPIRE SERVICESINC.ADJ9041984ADJ9040577Findings Award and Orderstipulationpsychiatric injury
References
1
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. 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. ADJ7264915
Regular
Jul 15, 2013

ANA GONZALES vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial psychiatric injury but whose orthopedic claims were denied due to insufficient medical evidence. The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to present substantial medical evidence of industrial causation for her orthopedic complaints. A dissenting commissioner argued that the primary medical evaluator's report was deficient and lacked substantial evidence, warranting further development of the record on orthopedic injuries and other claims. The dissent emphasizes the Board's duty to ensure substantial justice, suggesting it should have ordered further investigation on the denied orthopedic issues.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderindustrial injurypsychelow backneckright shoulderright wristright elbow
References
11
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. ADJ8-481702
Regular
May 30, 2017

SALVATORE PUCCIO vs. ONLINE GRAPHICS AND FINISHING, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker who suffered orthopedic injuries from a fall and subsequently had a stroke in the hospital. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the stroke to be a compensable consequence of the industrial injury. This was based on the expert opinion that the necessity to withhold anticoagulation medication due to the orthopedic injuries directly increased the risk of the stroke. Therefore, the Board amended the original order to include the stroke as industrially caused, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Salvatore PuccioOnline Graphics and FinishingEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ8-481702Petition for ReconsiderationCompensable ConsequenceIndustrial InjuryAtrial FibrillationCerebral Vascular AccidentAnticoagulant Therapy
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ginsberg v. Industrial Home for the Blind

The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving plaintiff Seymour Ginsberg, who sustained a transportation-related injury during his employment with the Industrial Home for the Blind. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's sole legal recourse was under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Term correctly granted the defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint. This decision was based on the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, making the Workers’ Compensation Law the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTransportation InjuryEmployment
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13,796 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