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. SBR 0338656
Regular
May 27, 2008

BRYAN YOUNG vs. CITY OF BEAUMONT, Permissibly Self-Insured c/o S.C.R.M.A.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, dismissed the applicant's petition, and granted removal. The Board rescinded the administrative law judge's order requiring the applicant to choose a physician from the employer's network. This decision clarifies that an employee has the right under Labor Code section 4605 to select and pay for their own physician, independent of employer-provided medical care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBryan YoungCity of BeaumontPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 4605Medical Provider NetworkPrimary Treating PhysicianConsulting Physician
References
4
Case No. ADJ3269128 (SAC 0315100)
Regular
Jan 29, 2010

STEFANIE KING vs. SIERRA FAMILY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order for further medical record development. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The Board also rescinded the WCJ's subsequent order appointing a physician, as the WCJ lacked authority to issue it while a petition for reconsideration was pending. Removal was granted on the Board's own motion to address the impropriety of the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinding and OrderCumulative PeriodIndustrial InjuryMononucleosisEpstein-Barr Syndrome
References
7
Case No. ADJ3206000 (LAO 0877236)
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

JENNIFER HESTER vs. TECHNICOLOR, Permissibly Self-Insured

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision limiting the defendant's payment for hip surgery to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, which the applicant's surgeon deemed insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the complex fee dispute, noting that while extraordinary circumstances existed regarding the surgeon's qualifications, the reasonableness of his requested fee was unproven. To resolve this, the Board ordered the appointment of an agreed physician to investigate the surgeon's usual fee and its reasonableness compared to others with similar expertise.

ReconsiderationFindings of FactAgreed PhysicianMedical TreatmentFee ScheduleExtraordinary CircumstancesUsual FeeHip ArthroscopyOsteoplastyChondroplasty
References
1
Case No. ADJ6870715
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

JOSE VELEZ vs. PROGRESSIVE PRODUCE, ZURICH

The WCAB vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's petition because the appealed WCJ order was not a final, appealable decision. However, the Board granted removal due to the WCJ's procedural error in striking a medical report via an unauthorized "walk-through" order, which violated due process and WCAB rules. The case is returned to the trial level for proper proceedings on the defendant's discovery motion regarding the physician's deposition. The WCJ can then address issues like deposition fees and potential sanctions if the physician fails to comply.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalStrike Medical ReportDepositionFee DisputeDue ProcessWalk-through OrderWCJLien Claimant
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Case No. ADJ1218087 (RIV 0084685)
Regular
Jun 15, 2010

ZZLATKO KATIC vs. CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICE INC., GREAT WEST SOUTH SIOUX CITY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar to depose the primary treating physician regarding deficiencies in the permanent and stationary report. The defendant argued the WCJ lacked the power to order further record development before trial and would suffer irreparable harm. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the WCJ's order to develop the record was correct as the treating physician's report was the only one addressing permanent disability and lacked substantial evidence. The Board also rejected the defendant's claim of irreparable harm from going to trial on an inadequate record.

Petition for removalWCJ orderOrder taking off calendarPrimary treating physician (PTP)Permanent and stationary (P&S) report deficienciesRecord developmentSubstantial evidenceIndustrial injuryAgreed medical evaluator (AME)Mandatory settlement conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ9501859
Regular
May 13, 2015

, Jose Chavez, vs. , Miracle Farms, d/b/a Golden Valley Farms; Star Insurance Company, Administered By Meadowbrook Insurance Group,

The applicant suffered a low back injury and claims additional injuries, with a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation physician as his primary treating doctor. The WCJ incorrectly ordered a Spine-MNB QME panel, overriding the parties' requests and the primary physician's specialty. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's reconsideration petition as untimely for a non-final order. They granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and substituted their own, directing the Medical Unit to issue a QME panel in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME PanelPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationSpine-MNBOrthopedic PanelPrimary Treating Physician
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2004

Sweeney v. Purcell Constructuion Corp.

Plaintiffs appealed and cross-appealed an order from Supreme Court, Jefferson County, concerning damages for injuries from toxic mold exposure at their workplace. The court properly denied defendants' initial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the claim that Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) are not recognized, as plaintiffs alleged occupationally-induced asthma instead. The court also correctly denied plaintiffs' motions to preclude expert testimony due to waiver. However, the appellate court found the trial court erred in granting defendants' eve-of-trial motion to amend their answer and dismiss the complaint against individual defendant physicians based on the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy, deeming the motion untimely. Consequently, the order was modified to deny defendants' motion regarding Workers’ Compensation Law §11 and reinstate the complaint against the individual physicians, and as modified, affirmed without costs.

workers' compensation lawsummary judgmenttoxic mold exposureoccupational asthmaexpert testimonyamendment of pleadingexclusive remedytimeliness of motionmedical malpractice claimappellate review
References
3
Case No. ADJ6775950
Regular
Jun 22, 2017

MARTIN MENDOZA vs. W&M TEXTILE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimant Physician Funding Solutions, LLC. The Board rescinded the prior order dismissing the lien of Physician Funding Rancho Cucamonga and Rx Funding Solutions Rancho Cucamonga. The WCJ's report, which was adopted by the Board, provided the reasoning for this decision. This order reinstates the dismissed liens.

Physician Funding SolutionsLLCRx Funding SolutionsLLCPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportGrant ReconsiderationRescind Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24,758 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