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. SFO 0501425
Significant
Sep 05, 2007

Paul Cruz, Applicant vs. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco, Auto Dealers Compensation of California, administered by InterCare Insurance Company

The Appeals Board held that 'amputations' under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C) means the severance of a limb or external body part, not the surgical removal of internal parts, thus the applicant’s back surgery did not qualify for extended temporary disability benefits.

Labor Code Section 4656Temporary Disability IndemnityAmputation ExceptionTwo-Year/104-Week CapReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionSurgical RemovalTraumatic LossBodily AppendageLimb Severance
References
14
Case No. SFO 0501425
En Banc
Sep 05, 2007

Paul Cruz vs. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco, Auto Dealers Compensation of California

The Appeals Board held that the term 'amputations' in Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C) refers to the severance of a limb or external body appendage, not the surgical removal of internal parts like a spinal disk, thus denying the applicant extended temporary disability benefits.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)amputation exceptiontemporary disability indemnitytwo-year/104-week capsurgical removaltraumatic losslimbbody appendageen banc decisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
14
Case No. SFO 0496045
Regular
Mar 10, 2008

DENNIS RUTKOWSKI vs. CITY OF LARKSPUR - FIRE DEPARTMENT, INNOVATIVE CLAIM SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding a firefighter sustained industrial cancer in his left arm. While affirming the WCJ's findings on injury and entitlement to treatment, the Board amended the award to correct the affected limb to the applicant's right arm. The defendant's arguments challenging the medical evidence and burden of proof were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFirefighterCancerLatency PeriodFaust v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Burden of ProofReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMedical TreatmentFindings of Fact
References
1
Case No. SJO 0230368 SJO 0230369
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

John Anzevino vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant eligible for Subsequent Injuries Fund (SIBF) benefits. The Board determined that the applicant's credible, unrebutted testimony regarding his pre-existing left upper extremity limitations constituted substantial evidence of an "impairment" affecting that limb. Consequently, the case was returned for further proceedings to establish the extent of SIBF benefits.

Subsequent Injuries FundLabor Code section 4751Petition for ReconsiderationPre-existing disabilityLabor disabling conditionLeft upper extremityUnrebutted testimonyMedical evidenceOpposing memberSignificant impairment
References
3
Case No. LAO 854789
Regular
Oct 09, 2007

Juana Manriquez vs. KENVIN, INC., dba CORDOVAN & GREY LTD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought extended temporary disability benefits, claiming a rotator cuff debridement during shoulder arthroscopy constituted an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that "debridement" of an internal body part, like bone, does not meet the statutory definition of amputation. This definition requires the severance or removal of a limb or body appendage, conforming to the common understanding of the term.

Juana ManriquezKenvin IncState Compensation Insurance FundLAO 854789Petition for ReconsiderationAugust 6 2007 Findings and Ordershoulder arthroscopyamputationLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)temporary disability
References
4
Case No. LAO 0850067
Regular
Sep 24, 2007

JULIE RAMIREZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAROLE COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior WCJ finding, ruling that total knee replacement surgery does not constitute an "amputation" for the purpose of extending temporary disability indemnity beyond the 104-week statutory limit. The Board clarified that "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C) applies only to the severance or removal of external limbs or appendages, not internal body parts. Therefore, the applicant's claim for additional temporary disability indemnity was denied.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)Amputation exceptionTemporary disability indemnity104-week capReconsiderationRemovalInterim Findings and AwardKnee replacement surgeryBilateral kneesIndustrial injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ2023774
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHRISTOPHER CORBO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns whether an applicant's severe crush injury to his left foot, involving a partial avulsion of the heel pad, constitutes an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C) for purposes of extending temporary disability indemnity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that the injury did not meet the definition of amputation. The Board clarified that "amputation" requires severance or removal of a limb or appendage, not merely a severe laceration or partial separation of tissue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4656(c)(3)(C)AmputationTemporary DisabilityCrush InjuryAvulsionHeel PadCalcaneusCruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco
References
4
Case No. ANA 0290076
Regular
May 28, 2008

CHERI ESTRADA vs. GATEWAY/ANAHEIM HARBOR MEDICAL GROUP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FREMONT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant who sustained an admitted industrial injury in 1994 resulting in spinal, head, and limb impairments. The applicant sought reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) denial of 100% permanent disability, arguing her physical limitations and medication rendered her unemployable. The WCAB majority denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's prior findings. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the applicant's multiple surgeries, medication side effects, failure in vocational rehabilitation, and vocational expert opinions supported a finding of 100% permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryFremont Indemnity Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPermanent disabilityLife pensionVocational rehabilitationAgreed medical evaluatorIndependent vocational expertOpen labor market
References
1
Case No. 2018-2353 RO C
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Russo v. Jay

Plaintiffs Rosemarie Russo and Joseph Ostrowsky sued defendant Kenneth Jay in a small claims action for property damage caused by a tree limb falling from defendant's property. Defendant counterclaimed for trespassing. The Justice Court awarded plaintiffs damages. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the judgment, finding that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case by not demonstrating a defective condition or defendant's actual or constructive notice of such a condition in the tree. The court also noted plaintiffs' failure to exercise their right to self-help by pruning overhanging branches. The matter was remitted to the Justice Court for entry of a judgment dismissing the action.

property damagetree liabilityadjoining landownerssmall claims appealnegligenceconstructive noticeself-help doctrineappellate reversalprima facie caseJustice Court
References
12
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
Showing 1-10 of 18 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