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. ADJ6610233
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

WILLIAM WILLIAMS (Deceased) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns a deceased correctional officer whose dependent sons were awarded death benefits. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order requiring an offset for a CalPERS special death benefit received by the decedent's widow, deeming it consistent with precedent and statutory intent. The Board also issued a notice of intention to disallow the applicant's attorney's requested fee increase due to non-compliance with a rule regarding notice to the client of adverse interests. Compliance with this rule is required for the fee increase to be considered by the trial judge.

CalPERSspecial death benefitoffsetdeath benefitsdependent childrenattorney's feesWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counselPetiton for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ1560752
Regular
Sep 09, 2025

EUGENE FLOWERS vs. RAY MAC PAINTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the January 12, 2021 Findings and Award (F&A) in the case of Eugene Flowers, who sustained an industrial injury to his right shoulder and subsequently alleged a psyche injury. Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund sought reconsideration, contesting the reasonableness of treatment provided by lien claimant Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology, liability for statutory increase and interest, and the validity of the lien due to declaration requirements. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, concluded that the applicant's psyche injury was a compensable consequence, the psychological treatment was medically necessary and reasonable, and the lien was not barred by the late filing of the declaration under Labor Code section 4903.8(d). Consequently, the F&A, which ordered payment for adjusted charges along with statutory interest and increase, was upheld.

ReconsiderationFindings and AwardBehavioral Medicine and Health Psychologyindustrial injurypsychemedically reasonablenecessarystatutory increaseinterestlien claimant
References
6
Case No. ADJ8981638
Regular
Jan 19, 2019

ANTHONY INGRASSI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries to his left shoulder, lumbar spine, right hip, and left elbow. The defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award, arguing the $36\%$ permanent disability award should only be paid over 173 weeks and that the Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) increase was unwarranted. The Appeals Board amended the award to reflect 173 weeks for the permanent disability and affirmed the $4658(d)(2)$ increase, finding the defendant failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for return-to-work offers after the applicant's medical condition became permanent and stationary, despite the applicant's brief return to work. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the $4658(d)(2)$ increase should not apply as the defendant's failure to issue a second notice was form over substance given the applicant was already working full duty.

Labor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Permanent Disability AwardApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent Impairment RatingsNotice of Offer of Regular WorkDWC-AD 10118Substantial ComplianceReturn to Work Incentives
References
13
Case No. ADJ361974
Regular
Feb 11, 2013

ANA VELASQUEZ vs. AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a $1,000 sanction against applicant's attorney, Peter T. Brown, and his firm. The original sanction was for violating rules regarding supervision of non-attorney employees and requiring specific written authorization for settlement documents. The WCAB found Brown's conduct, including alleged misrepresentations and failure to adequately supervise his employee's submission of a compromise and release without full disclosure, warranted an increased sanction. The WCAB is now considering imposing a sanction of up to $2,500 and has given Brown an opportunity to show cause why this increase is not warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCompromise and ReleaseSupervisionWritten AuthorizationCumulative TraumaGood Faith Negotiation
References
0
Case No. ADJ8132431
Regular
Feb 12, 2018

Nichole Delgado vs. EL TEPEYAC CAFÉ; CRMBC(SIG), AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding the defendant liable for a lien claimant's photocopying services. The Board determined the lien claimant complied with statutory requirements for valid liens, including a declaration under penalty of perjury. Furthermore, the defendant failed to timely object to the billed services or their reasonableness within the 60-day period mandated by Labor Code section 4622. Consequently, the defendant is liable for the billed amount, a 10% statutory increase, and interest.

Labor Code section 4622Labor Code section 4903.8medical-legal lienphotocopy servicesdeclaration under penalty of perjuryreasonableness of chargesstatutory increaseinterestobjection periodtimely filing
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. ADJ8181938; ADJ8702275
Regular
Apr 10, 2023

KAREN MILLER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VENTURA YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued against the statutory 15% increase, the method of evaluating spine impairment, and the inclusion of a sleep disorder. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the application of the 15% increase or the evaluation of the spine impairment using the ROM method as deemed appropriate by the agreed medical examiner. Furthermore, the Board upheld the finding of an industrially caused sleep disorder, noting that formal sleep studies are not always required for diagnosis and that the physician's rating falls within the AMA Guides.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedVentura Youth Correctional FacilityAdjudication NumbersOccupational Group 214Cervical SpineLumbar SpineBilateral ShouldersGastrointestinal System
References
1
Case No. ADJ4446673 (AHM 0130995)
Regular
Oct 13, 2020

OCTAVIO ARTURO ANAYA vs. CARLOS SANDOVAL DBA SANDS TRANSPORT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought an increased hourly rate for attendant care services provided since January 1, 2020. The defendant argued the Administrative Law Judge erred by modifying a 2013 stipulation award outside the five-year statutory period under Labor Code section 5804. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the increased rate by distinguishing enforcement of awards under section 5803 from modification under section 5804. The Board clarified that the 2013 award's provision for ongoing attendant care allowed for adjustments based on reasonable costs, without violating the five-year limitation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardattendant care serviceshourly rateStipulation Award OrderLabor Code section 5803Labor Code section 5804petition for reconsiderationadministrative law judgehome health carewage analysis report
References
3
Case No. ADJ7820332
Regular
Apr 21, 2012

RICHARD SANTOR vs. CITY OF LAKEPORT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an amended award concerning permanent disability indemnity for applicant Richard Santor. The Board found that the employer's initial offer of regular work, made before the applicant was declared permanent and stationary, satisfied the statutory purpose of returning employees to work. However, following a subsequent exacerbation of injury and a second permanent and stationary date, the employer failed to make a timely offer of modified work. Consequently, the Board ordered a 15% increase in permanent disability payments effective May 11, 2011, and a 10% penalty on those increased payments, reversing the WCJ's decision to strike the decrease in payments during an earlier period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulationsPermanent Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Offer of Regular WorkPermanent and Stationary DateTemporary Total DisabilityPQME ReportNotice of Intention
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1983

Haskin v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

The plaintiff, Doris Haskin, contested the reduction of her Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) payments by the Secretary due to increases in her retirement benefits. She argued that these reductions were improper, citing that her overall income was not increasing and her initial SSI eligibility determination occurred before she received retirement benefits. Additionally, Haskin claimed improper maintenance of employment records and alleged unconstitutional discrimination against her as an SSI recipient who contributed to Social Security, unlike some others. The Court affirmed the Secretary's decision, finding that the reduction was based on substantial evidence and correct statutory interpretation, as retirement benefits are categorized as unearned income for SSI. It also dismissed her equal protection claim, emphasizing the general funding of SSI and judicial deference to legislative classifications, and denied her request for a jury trial, limiting review to the substantial evidence standard.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeRetirement BenefitsSSI Payment ReductionEqual Protection ClaimConstitutional LawAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence ReviewDisability IncomeGovernment Assistance Programs
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,811 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