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. ADJ8185753
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

JUAN ZEPEDA vs. BERBERIAN NUT COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES. INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal. The defendant sought to remove a finding and order requiring a new medical evaluation by an internist, arguing it was unnecessary and prejudicial. The Board found that the applicant demonstrated good cause for the additional evaluation, supported by prior medical reports and testimony indicating the need for an internist to assess specific industrial complaints. The Board concluded the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalFinding and OrderQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Internal MedicineDisputed Medical IssueDWC Regulation 31.7(b)Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ Report and RecommendationMedical Record Development
References
1
Case No. ADJ6881051
Regular
Sep 24, 2012

CAMILO LLANEZ vs. DIAMOND HOLDINGS OF CALIFORNIA, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained on February 8, 2009. The defendant sought reconsideration of the original award, arguing the permanent disability rating and certain medical opinions were unsupported. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the orthopedic AME's 12% impairment rating for grip loss unsubstantiated due to lack of proper analysis. However, the Board affirmed the internist's opinions regarding GERD and hypertension, deferred issues of permanent disability and apportionment, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

WCABReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Occupational Group NumberApportionmentPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4658(d)Substantial Evidence
References
15
Case No. ADJ8464782
Regular
Oct 23, 2017

JOAN FEDOR MISKIEWICZ vs. VENTURA ORTHOPEDICS MEDICAL CENTER, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). The defendant argued the judge erred by not considering an internist's opinion on CML latency and by not allowing further expert development. However, the Board found these arguments premature, as the specific issue of the date of injury or liability period, which would implicate the defendant's coverage dates, had not yet been decided. Therefore, the defendant was not aggrieved by the judge's initial ruling on the existence of industrial injury.

Chronic myelogenous leukemiaIndustrial injuryPetition for reconsiderationQualified medical evaluatorOncologyLatency periodLabor Code section 5412Labor Code section 5500.5Coverage periodAdministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ8501384
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

ARTEMIO VASQUEZ vs. INTEGRAL SENIOR LIVING, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Artemio Vasquez, against Integral Senior Living and Helmsman Management Services. The applicant sought removal due to incomplete discovery, specifically concerning a neurologist, internist, and sleep study, and alleged prejudice from proceeding to trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The Board found the objection untimely, noted the applicant's failure to object to the Declaration of Readiness or diligently pursue discovery, and concluded that any issues with the PQME report could be addressed by the trial judge or via post-trial remedies, thus not causing irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAOE/COE
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Curtis v. Adirondack Trailways

The claimant, a bus driver for Adirondack Trailways, suffered a heart attack in 1981, which was deemed compensable. After returning to work, he experienced another incident of chest pain in December 1983, shortly after assisting striking Greyhound workers, a period during which his workload reportedly increased significantly due to a rival bus line strike. This incident led to a five-day hospitalization. While the claimant's treating internist testified that the myocardial infarction was causally related to his work, two cardiologists found no such causal link. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of no causally related disability, concluding that the myocardial infarction was related to the claimant's work efforts. The full Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently appealed by Trailways.

Heart AttackMyocardial InfarctionBus DriverIncreased WorkloadCausal RelationshipMedical Testimony ConflictWorkers' Compensation LawSubstantial EvidenceBoard DecisionMedical Expert
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coyle v. Morningside House of St. Luke's Home

The claimant, a 50-year-old laundry worker, suffered a myocardial infarction after forcefully pulling a machine door, which an internist later linked to her work activities. Five months post-incident, the employer received the compensation claim notice. Although initial hearings addressed issues like accident and notice, these weren't revisited when the claimant testified. The Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed the referee's decision, excusing the claimant's failure to provide statutory written notice due to prompt medical treatment and the employer's knowledge. However, the Board neglected to determine if the employer knew of the claimant's intent to file a claim, if the carrier waived the notice issue, or if the investigation delay was excusable. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case for further findings.

myocardial infarctionlaundry worker injurynotice of claimcausal relationshipoccupational diseasewaiver of noticeprejudiceremitted for further findingsWorkmen's Compensation Board appealappellate review
References
3
Showing 1-6 of 6 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