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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ10187704, ADJ10924724
Regular
May 17, 2018

STEVEN CASE vs. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to increase applicant's permanent disability rating for bilateral shoulder injury from 9% to 38%. The Board found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) alternative rating, based on strength loss, was substantial medical evidence and properly considered within the AMA Guides. The WCJ erred in applying an overly restrictive interpretation of "complex or extraordinary" cases for deviating from strict AMA Guides ratings. The AME's use of strength loss data from the AMA Guides, even for an age outside the specified range, was permissible under the *Almaraz-Guzman* line of cases when justified by clinical judgment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)permanent disability ratingbilateral shouldersorthopedic AMEAMA GuidesAlmaraz-Guzmanstrength loss index
References
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ1030139 (STK 0203781)
Regular
Nov 19, 2014

GERALD REESE vs. MICRODENTAL LABORATORIES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the permanent disability rating for applicant Gerald Reese, who sustained an industrial injury in 2006. The primary issue was whether to include a deconditioning impairment, rated by a PQME using analogy, into the permanent disability award. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision but amended it to defer the issue of permanent disability for further proceedings. This deferral is to allow the WCJ to issue rating instructions based on the established legal framework for incorporating AMA Guides impairments, even those addressed by analogy.

PQMEdeconditioningAMA Guideswhole person impairmentanalogyLabor Code section 4660Almaraz/Guzman IIMilpitas Unified School Dist.City of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.rating instructions
References
Case No. ADJ758842 (VNO 0559214)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

JOHN PATCHETT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision to vacate the submission. This action was based on the DEU evaluator's testimony, which revealed deficiencies in the AMEs' reports concerning the AMA Guides. The Board found the applicant waived any objection to this testimony by failing to object at trial, and that the evaluator's expert opinion was permissible per *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. Defendant's objection, though not styled as a motion to strike, sufficiently raised the issues leading to the vacation of the rating.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDEU evaluatorAMA Guidesagreed medical evaluators (AMEs)rating instructionssubstantial evidenceobjective factors of disabilitywhole person impairmentformal rating
References
Case No. ADJ1904323 (GRO 0034275) ADJ3208896 (GRO 0034276) ADJ649343 (GRO 0034277)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SARAH SHIPP vs. GOTTSCHALKS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior award due to the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) improper reliance on an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) hernia analogy to rate upper extremity impairment. This analogy violated *Almaraz II* by not adhering to the AMA Guides and potentially incorporating pre-2005 rating schedules. The rater also used an incorrect impairment number and occupational adjustment. The case is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ, ensuring the rating is not based on the flawed hernia analogy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSarah ShippGottschalksSpecialty Risk ServicesJoint Findings and Awardindustrial injuryright shoulderleft shoulderright elbowthumb
References
Case No. ADJ10121570
Regular
Aug 19, 2016

TRACY BAKER vs. FOOTHILL DEANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding the applicant sustained a work-related rib and chest injury. The defendant argued the QME's opinion on permanent disability and future medical treatment lacked substantial medical evidence, as it relied on analogy due to the absence of a specific rating in the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the original award but deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees, finding the QME's analogical rating was conclusory and unsupported by sufficient reasoning. A dissenting commissioner argued the analogy was permissible under precedent allowing clinical judgment for poorly understood conditions manifesting solely as subjective symptoms.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentQualified Medical EvaluatorWhole Person ImpairmentSubstantial Medical EvidenceAMA GuidesClinical Judgment
References
Case No. ADJ11368246
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

Marta Ubillus vs. One Stop Employment Services, LLC/Vensure Employer Services, Security National Insurance Company, State National Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the valuation of interpreter services. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found that while the defendant did not present rebuttal evidence, the ALJ had substantial evidence to make a determination. The ALJ determined a market rate of $114.97 per hour but noted the lien claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the duration of services on most dates, preventing application of the market rate. Consequently, the statutory rate was applied for those services.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedLien ClaimantInterpreter ServicesMarket RateStatutory RateWCJ ReportSubstantial EvidenceFindings and Award
References
Case No. SDO 0321444 SDO 0321446
Regular
Jun 28, 2007

MARY BLOEMSMA vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the use of the revised permanent disability rating schedule for applicant's pre-January 1, 2005 injury. The Board found that the treating physician's reports did not explicitly state the applicant was "permanent and stationary" with a ratable disability, a prerequisite for applying the older rating schedule under Labor Code § 4660(d). Therefore, the revised schedule was correctly applied, resulting in a 22% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleRevised Rating SchedulePrior Rating ScheduleLabor Code Section 4660(d)Permanent and Stationary StatusTreating Physician's ReportComprehensive Medical-Legal ReportIndustrial InjuryHerniated Disc
References
Case No. ADJ2531503 (AHM 0111102), ADJ3636599 (AHM 0111103), ADJ4058229 (AHM 0123911)
Regular
Dec 23, 2010

JIM POTTS vs. CITY OF IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the permanent disability rate and defer the attorney's fee calculation for the life pension. The Board affirmed the 86% permanent disability finding, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant's post-injury work history should have altered the medical opinions, as the defendant had the opportunity to address this. The Board also clarified that the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule was correctly applied and deferred the issue of temporary disability overpayment to the trial level.

Cumulative traumaSpineLeft shoulderRight wristBilateral kneesLeft ankleCardiovascular systemHypertensionPermanent disabilityLife pension
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,684 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