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. ADJ4106399 (SAL 0115982)
Regular
Jun 06, 2009

Nicholas Ramos vs. ANITA ZARAGOZA, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the decision that the defendant did not meet its burden to establish that the applicant earned less than $100.00 and worked less than 52 hours in the 90 days before the injury.

Labor Code section 3352(h)Labor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3357excluded employeehomeowner's testimony52 hours90 daysearnings requirementclerical errorPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of VanWinkle v. Harden Furniture

Claimant, a woodworker, sustained a work-related back injury and subsequently resigned from her physically demanding job after being denied a less strenuous office position. The employer challenged her temporary award of reduced earnings, arguing she voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that her resignation was motivated by her back injury and persistent pain, supported by her treating chiropractor's advice to seek less strenuous work. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. This decision upheld the claimant's entitlement to reduced earnings benefits.

voluntary withdrawallabor marketback injuryresignationreduced earningschiropractic advicesubstantial evidenceworkers' compensation lawemployment changephysical restrictions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc.

Wanda Thompson, a Black employee, alleged racial discrimination after being laid off from her construction secretary position. She claimed she was transferred to poor field offices, received less pay than Caucasian secretaries, and was ultimately terminated, despite an "excellent" performance rating, while a less senior white employee assumed her former transit secretary role. The employer was required to hire minority workers and allegedly placed only minority clerical employees in temporary field positions. The court found that the Division of Human Rights’ determination of "no probable cause" lacked a rational basis, concluding that discrimination could be inferred from the circumstances. Therefore, the court deemed the Division's dismissal of Thompson's complaint arbitrary and capricious, reversing their decision.

Racial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationEqual Employment OpportunityAdministrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProbable CauseSeniorityPay DisparityWorkplace ConditionsField Office
References
4
Case No. ADJ767882 (SAL 0102012)
Regular
Dec 14, 2020

Stella Avila vs. Sutter Santa Cruz, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award for admitted industrial injury to the applicant's spine, psyche, and upper extremities. The applicant sought total permanent disability based on a vocational expert, while the defendant argued the psychiatric injury was not compensable due to less than six months' employment and that permanent disability indemnity should not be awarded during VRMA payments. The Board affirmed the finding that prior and current employment with the employer exceeded six months, making the psychiatric injury compensable, and deemed the VRMA issue moot due to an amended award. The Board also found the vocational experts' opinions less persuasive than those of the Agreed Medical Examiners regarding the extent of permanent disability.

ADJ767882Stella AvilaSutter Santa CruzState Compensation Insurance FundPermanent DisabilityVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMAPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Gottschalks Dept. Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1992

In re Nathan S.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Franklin County, which adjudicated a juvenile a delinquent for committing an act that would constitute third-degree burglary if committed by an adult. Following a dispositional hearing, the Family Court placed the juvenile in the custody of the Franklin County Commissioner of Social Services for 12 months, in a residential facility offering therapy, as recommended by a psychiatrist. The petitioner appealed on two grounds: first, that a less restrictive alternative (placement with parents) was not tried, and second, that the Law Guardian was granted unlimited direct access to information from the Department of Social Services case workers. The appellate court affirmed the placement decision, stating that the law does not require less restrictive alternatives to fail before more restrictive ones are imposed. However, the court modified the order by deleting the provision granting the Law Guardian unfettered access to Department records, finding insufficient factual basis for such broad access.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily CourtDispositional HearingLeast Restrictive AlternativeChild WelfareCustody PlacementResidential FacilityPsychiatric EvaluationLaw Guardian AccessSocial Services Records
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardoza v. Healthfirst, Inc.

Plaintiff Paula Cardozo sued Health-first, Inc. under Title VII and New York Human Rights Laws, alleging gender discrimination for being denied a promotion and subsequently terminated. She claimed a less qualified man was promoted over her and that her termination was gender-based. Defendant Healthfirst moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons for its actions, including the promoted individual's strong performance and a shift in business emphasis leading to the plaintiff's position becoming less significant. The court, presided over by Judge Berman, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the failure to promote claim and did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant's stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination regarding either the promotion or the termination. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Gender DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawFailure to PromoteWrongful TerminationNew York Human Rights LawPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate Treatment
References
44
Case No. ADJ10788598
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

Shanai King vs. Food 4 Less

This case involves a claimant alleging a psychiatric injury due to workplace stress. The administrative law judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding the applicant's testimony not credible and the medical evaluations insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. This decision stems from deficiencies in the medical evaluator's analysis of causation, conflating injury causation with permanent disability causation, and the need to develop the medical record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPsyche InjuryQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial CausationPredominant CauseGood Faith Personnel ActionSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
7
Case No. ADJ2500208 (RDG 0101744)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

JAMES MILLER vs. FOOD 4 LESS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant James Miller's petition for removal, rescinding an order compelling his attendance at a medical examination. The WCAB clarified that when an unrepresented applicant objects to a utilization review denial of treatment, the employer must provide a QME panel, and no other medical evaluation may be obtained. The case is returned to the trial level to address the ongoing medical treatment dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalImprovidently GrantedOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentUtilization Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ6587935
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

BRENT HAWKINS vs. FOOD FOR LESS, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order that awarded a lien claimant $900. The defendant argued the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) improperly considered an informal agreement not submitted for approval. The Board found it a due process violation for the WCJ to treat a proposed exhibit as a stipulated agreement without it being formally submitted. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAspen Medical Grouplien claimantinformal agreementstipulation and orderdue processGangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Beverly Hills Multispecialty GroupInc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
5
Case No. ADJ9663211
Regular
May 18, 2018

RAFAEL VASQUEZ vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA FOOD 4 LESS

This case involves a lien claimant's appeal after their liens were disallowed by the WCJ. The lien claimant argued their medical reports constituted substantial evidence for injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and that the defendant's claim denial was untimely. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the lien claimant's primary medical opinions were not substantial evidence because they were based on incomplete medical histories, failing to consider prior injuries and treatments adequately. Furthermore, the Board found the defendant's denial of the cumulative trauma claim was timely filed within the statutory 90-day period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantSupplemental Findings of Fact and OrderInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of EmploymentLabor Code Section 5402Presumptively CompensableAgreed Medical EvaluatorStipulation with Request for AwardCumulative Trauma
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 272 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