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. GRO 0033226
Regular
Aug 31, 2007

FRANCISCO CHAGOLLA vs. LOS DOS VALLES HARVESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a lumbar spine injury and appealed a permanent disability rating. The applicant challenged the validity of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) and argued a vocational consultant's testimony rebutted the rating. The Board affirmed the original decision, finding the applicant failed to prove the PDRS was invalid and that the consultant's testimony did not rebut it. However, the Board reversed the denial of reimbursement for the consultant's expert testimony, finding him qualified as an expert in diminished future earning capacity.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDFrancisco ChagollaLos Dos Valles HarvestingState Compensation Insurance FundGRO 0033226Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injurylumbar spinepermanent disabilitydiminished future earning capacity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stromski v. Jefferson Auto Body

The claimant, an auto body repairer for 27 years, sought workers' compensation benefits for stomach cancer, attributing it to occupational exposure to chromium and talc. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding that his disease was not causally related to his occupation after resolving conflicting expert medical testimony against him. The Board credited the carrier's expert, an internal medicine specialist, who testified that studies only link a specific type of chromium to carcinogenicity in the upper respiratory tract, not stomach cancer. This expert testimony successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that resolving conflicts in medical testimony, particularly regarding causation, falls within the Board's province. Additionally, the claimant's appeal from the denial of reconsideration was deemed abandoned.

Occupational DiseaseStomach CancerCausationMedical Expert TestimonyChromium ExposureTalc ExposureBurden of ProofStatutory PresumptionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. STK 0197148
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

ALBERTA MENDOZA vs. CHEVY'S RESTAURANT, ACE USA/ESIS

The Appeals Board rescinded a prior order compelling the defendant to pay for a vocational expert to assess the applicant's permanent disability. While vocational expert testimony may be allowed to rebut the permanent disability rating schedule, it is not considered a medical-legal expense. The Board clarified that costs for such expert testimony are discretionary under Labor Code section 5811 and not mandatory prior to a determination of necessity and relevance.

Vocational expertpermanent disability ratingdiminished future earning capacitymedical-legal expenseAMA Guidesapportionmentrebuttal evidenceLabor Code section 4660(b)(1)Labor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4663(c)
References
1
Case No. ADJ1329489 (MON 0256260)
Regular
Jun 08, 2011

CHAVA COHEN vs. SHERIDAN ASSISTED LIVING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded an order compelling payment of medical-legal expenses, and denied the applicant's petition. The Board found that the vocational rehabilitation counselor's testimony, intended to rebut the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor under *Ogilvie*, was so deficient as to be incapable of affecting the applicant's permanent disability rating. Therefore, the costs of obtaining this testimony were deemed not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSheridan Assisted LivingState Compensation Insurance Fundmedical legal expenseJudie FogelOgilvievocational rehabilitation counselorpermanent disability ratingdiminished future earning capacityDFEC
References
2
Case No. GRO 32009
Regular
Jan 04, 2008

TEMICKA WILLIAMS vs. COMPASS HEALTH, INC., CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a 19% permanent disability rating for an industrial injury sustained on October 25, 2004, ruling the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule applies. The Board also found applicant's vocational expert's testimony insufficient to rebut the rating and that the defendant is not liable for the expert's trial testimony costs. However, the Board remanded the issue of the vocational expert's lien for further determination of its reasonableness and necessity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS)vocational expertdiminished future earning capacity (DFEC)Labor Code section 4660Dr. Anne Wallacelienreasonableness and necessitymedical-legal costsexpert testimony
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,931 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