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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucci v. Kimball

Claimant, a nursery school teacher, sustained a work-related lower back injury in December 1974, leading to permanent partial disability and workers’ compensation benefits. Following a second laminectomy in 1993, she developed worsening urinary incontinence. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a finding that claimant was totally disabled due to this condition, deeming it a consequence of her original work-related injury. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that while conflicting medical opinions existed, the neurologist’s testimony provided substantial evidence to support the finding of total disability stemming from the 1974 injury.

work-related injurylower back injuryurinary incontinencepermanent partial disabilitytotal disabilitylaminectomymedical opinionsneurologist testimonysubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ1784264 (MON 0302991)
Regular
Nov 21, 2016

GIRGIS FAM vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, partially overturning the original decision. The Board found that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his bilateral legs as initially determined. However, the Board affirmed the finding of total permanent disability due to diminished earning capacity and inability to compete in the open labor market, attributing it to lumbar spine and urinary incontinence injuries with full duplication. The Board also modified the temporary disability period and established a new permanent and stationary date of September 17, 2004, returning certain issues like attorney fees and home healthcare costs to the trial level for further determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardindustrial injurybilateral legscustodial supervisorurinary incontinencetotally and permanently disableddiminished future earning capacityapportionment
References
3
Case No. ADJ4118575 (MON 0342974)
Regular
May 26, 2010

MANUEL ORTIZ vs. TOWER INDUSTRIES, INC., SCIF INSURED INLAND EMPIRE

This case involves an applicant who sustained severe injuries in a riding accident, including multiple pelvic fractures and urological damage, requiring extensive surgeries. The applicant was awarded 100% permanent disability due to his constant pain, limited mobility, and functional impairments, including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The defendant appealed, arguing the 100% disability rating was not justified and disputing the findings of sleep disorder and erectile dysfunction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the applicant's 100% permanent disability, finding the evidence supported total permanent disability based on the facts of his severe injury and ongoing functional limitations. The Board denied the defendant's petitions for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityPetitions for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminersLabor Code Section 4662Pelvis InjuryLower Extremity InjuryUrethra InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6892402
Regular
May 24, 2012

MARIA D. LOPEZ vs. ADECCO USA, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order to proceed to trial. The applicant argued she was not prepared for trial as her condition was not permanent and stationary, and she needed a psychiatric evaluation. While acknowledging the applicant's lack of diligence in discovery, the Board found no urgency to proceed on the current record. Therefore, the case was taken off calendar to allow further discovery.

Petition for RemovalOpinion and OrderDecision After RemovalPermanent and StationarySpecialist PsychiatryBifurcationDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceObjection to DORPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
0
Case No. GRO 0020213
Regular
May 28, 2008

Sandra K. Carnahan vs. Albertsons Stores, Inc., Specialty Risk Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as it was not a final order, but granted removal. The Board found substantial evidence, including the primary treating physician's report and a utilization review certification, supported the applicant's need for a urological consultation due to urinary problems secondary to her industrial back injury. Therefore, the Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and ordered the defendant to provide the applicant with a urological consultation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJFindings of FactUrological consultationLumbar injuryNeural innervationUrinary tract infectionsUtilization review
References
10
Case No. ADJ367916 (SFO 0438710)
Regular
Jan 04, 2017

KARAN SINGH vs. UNITED PRODUCTS, INC, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK, CMS, FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a judge's award of 100% permanent total disability for applicant Karan Singh. The defendant argued the judge improperly relied on a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report and that the evidence did not support industrial causation for incontinence. The Board rescinded the original decision because the trial exhibits were not properly identified, making meaningful review impossible. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to establish a proper record and issue a new decision.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont Indemnity CompanyliquidationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorDr. Steven Feinbergindustrial causationfecal incontinence
References
3
Case No. ADJ9202287
Regular
Nov 10, 2016

Steven Picazzo vs. U.S. Security Associates, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Loyola Marymount, Travelers

The applicant sought removal of an order taking his case off calendar, arguing it deprived him of a trial on his entitlement to a wheelchair van. The WCAB denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as the applicant had already purchased a van, and any reimbursement issue could be addressed later. The Board reasoned the urgency of an expedited hearing diminished once the applicant self-procured the van. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, believing the applicant showed potential prejudice due to ongoing denial of transportation services for a serious illness and urging immediate intervention.

Petition for RemovalExpedited HearingWCJ OrderWheelchair Accessible VanUtilization ReviewMedical TreatmentReimbursementSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOff Calendar
References
0
Case No. ADJ6622799
Regular
Oct 18, 2013

TERRY A. WIRTH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the denial of a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, the State of California Highway Patrol. The applicant, Terry A. Wirth, suffered a continuous trauma injury (prostate cancer) leading to urinary and erectile dysfunction. The Appeals Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding that the date of injury was in 2008, determining the applicable permanent disability compensation rate based on that date. The Board also found ample evidence supporting the agreed medical examiner's impairment ratings for the applicant's post-surgical conditions, dismissing the defendant's objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardState of California Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent disability compensation rateLabor Code section 5412Urinary incontinenceErectile dysfunctionCommon postprostatectomy symptomsWhole person impairment ratings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Smith sued C.R. Bard, Inc. alleging retaliatory discharge under various acts, including the False Claims Act and Tennessee Public Protection Act. Smith claimed he was terminated for reporting the defendant's alleged off-label promotion of Tegress for male incontinence. The Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, finding Smith's complaints were motivated by personal liability concerns, not public good, and he failed to establish causation for his termination. The plaintiff's Tennessee False Claims Act claim was also deemed abandoned due to lack of pleading.

Retaliatory DischargeFalse Claims ActWhistleblower ProtectionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawOff-label PromotionMedical DevicesTennessee Public Protection ActCausationPublic Policy Exception
References
52
Case No. ADJ9225207
Regular
Dec 07, 2018

Javier Lopez vs. Sturtevant Farms, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case concerns Javier Lopez's claim for 100% permanent disability due to a June 7, 2013 injury to his corticospinal tract, resulting in incontinence and leg pain. The defendant, Sturtevant Farms, sought reconsideration, arguing prior permanent disability awards should be deducted, earnings were misrepresented, the date of birth was incorrect, and attorney fees were improperly awarded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the judge's findings based on the lack of established overlap between prior and current disabilities and sufficient evidence for earnings and date of birth. The Board also noted the defendant lacked standing to challenge attorney fees.

ADJ9225207Permanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code section 4664(c)(1)Labor Code section 4663Labor Code section 4664(b)corticospinal tract injurybowel and bladder incontinencecompensable consequence psyche injuryaverage weekly earnings
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 20 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