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. 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. 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. GOL 96757
Regular
Jun 10, 2008

SA YANG LO vs. CUSTOM SENSORS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award, upholding the application of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board found that exceptions allowing for the 1997 Schedule did not apply, as the applicant's temporary disability indemnity extended beyond January 1, 2005, and no qualifying pre-2005 reports indicated permanent disability. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion regarding diminished future earning capacity unpersuasive, thus affirming the initial 9% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSA Yang LoCustom Sensors & TechnologiesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundGOL 96757Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
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. ADJ6999838, ADJ6999863
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

JEFFREY DAVIS vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Applicant Jeffrey Davis sought reconsideration of a 74% permanent disability award, arguing vocational expert testimony supported 100% disability. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the vocational expert's reports were not substantial evidence. The WCJ properly concluded the applicant failed to meet his burden to rebut the scheduled rating. Therefore, the WCJ's original findings and award were affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability RatingPetition for ReconsiderationVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceRebuttalScheduled RatingAmenable to RehabilitationFurther Development of RecordStipulated Rating
References
Case No. ADJ1177048
Significant
Sep 03, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

This en banc decision clarifies that a permanent disability rating established by the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable, the burden of rebuttal rests with the party disputing the rating, and a rating may be rebutted by challenging one of its components, such as the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor.

Permanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECSchedulePrima Facie EvidenceRebuttableBurden of ProofRAND DataAMA GuidesOccupational Group
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. ADJ6662275
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

DARRIN BEAN vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a skin cancer injury. The applicant contests the testimony of an independent medical expert, Dr. Brigham, who offered an opinion on his impairment rating that differed from the agreed medical evaluator's (AME). The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, ruling that Dr. Brigham's testimony was inadmissible as he was neither an AME nor a treating physician and his testimony was not in rebuttal to formal rating instructions. Consequently, Dr. Brigham's testimony was stricken, the prior order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings based solely on admissible medical evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent Disability RatingClass 1 ImpairmentClass 2 ImpairmentClass 3 ImpairmentMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRebuttal Testimony
References
Case No. ADJ3130090 (SFO 0488450)
Regular
Mar 12, 2009

GUSTAVO CORDON vs. GARL FORCE CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's challenges to a prior award. The administrative law judge had determined a $42\%$ permanent disability rating by rebutting the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) provisions of the 2005 Schedule. However, the Board rescinded the award, remanding the case due to the WCJ's failure to follow the procedural requirements for rebutting the DFEC established in the en banc decision of *Ogilvie*. The Board emphasized that the WCJ must follow *Ogilvie* and may also consider further evidence on AMA Guides rebuttal issues consistent with *Almaraz*.

DFECpermanent disability ratingvocational rehabilitation expertSchedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesAMA Guidesrebuttableen banc decisionOgilvie v. City and County of San FranciscoAlmaraz v. Environmental Recovery ServicesLabor Code section 5811
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,888 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