Finnegan Marks is a workers’ compensation defense firm located in San Bruno, California, serving the Bay Area and beyond. With a proven track record in significant cases that have shaped California’s workers’ compensation law, the firm specializes in defending employers, insurers, and third-party administrators in complex legal challenges. Finnegan Marks has successfully represented clients in numerous landmark cases.
With a deep understanding of the legal landscape and a strategic approach, Finnegan Marks provides clients with the highest level of representation. The firm is proud of its role in influencing key legal precedents and its dedication to defending the interests of those it serves. Located in San Bruno, the firm is ideally positioned to serve a wide range of jurisdictions and venues throughout the Bay Area.
[Provided Amicus support to obtain Court of Appeal ruling that held IMR's 30-day decision requirement was discretionary and not mandatory]
In a recent case involving the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) on behalf of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision was challenged regarding the medical necessity of a proposed treatment for CHP employee Dorothy Margaris. The central issue was whether an independent medical review (IMR) must be completed within the 30-day period specified by Labor Code section 4610.6. The Appeals Board had ruled that an IMR determination issued beyond this period was invalid, thereby granting themselves jurisdiction over the treatment’s necessity. However, the court disagreed, concluding that the 30-day limit in section 4610.6 is directory rather than mandatory. As a result, even if an IMR is late, it remains valid and binding as the final determination by the director. The court annulled the Appeals Board’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Learn More[Provided Amicus support to obtain Court of Appeal ruling that requires determination whether EE can benefit from V.R. before scheduled rating can be challenged]
In the case of Contra Costa County v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) (2015), the Court of Appeal addressed the authority of the WCAB in determining permanent disability benefits. Contra Costa County contested the WCAB's decision to award benefits that deviated from the statutory formula. The court ruled that the WCAB acted within its authority and that its interpretation of the workers' compensation statutes was reasonable and consistent with legislative intent. The decision affirmed the board's discretion in applying the law to ensure fair compensation for the injured worker, highlighting the balance between statutory guidelines and administrative judgment in workers' compensation cases.
Learn More[Helped obtain Federal Court approval of lien activation fee as within the Legislature’s constitutional authority]
Angelotti v. WCAB (2015)**: In the case of *Angelotti v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)*, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether an injured worker's claim for workers' compensation benefits could be denied based on the exclusion of certain medical evidence. The court ruled that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had the authority to disregard medical opinions that were not properly supported or were irrelevant to the case. Specifically, the court found that the WCAB's decision to exclude certain medical evidence was appropriate and upheld the denial of the worker's claim. The ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring that medical evidence used in workers' compensation cases is both relevant and reliable.
Learn More[a rare appellate victory against CIGA, requiring the WCAB to apply principles of res judicata when evaluating efforts by CIGA to avoid legal consequences of agreements entered into by CIGA or the insolvent insurer that are no longer subject to reopening or judicial review]
State Farm Ins. Group v. WCAB (Lutz) (B240742, pub. ord. 07/25/13)**: In *State Farm Insurance Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Lutz)*, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a dispute involving the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and the insurer, State Farm. The central issue was whether the WCAB had erred in its decision regarding the compensability of certain medical expenses and the extent of benefits due to the claimant, Lutz. The court found that the WCAB's determination was within its discretion and supported by substantial evidence. The ruling upheld the WCAB's decision to award benefits, emphasizing the board's role in evaluating and determining the compensability of workers' compensation claims based on the evidence presented.
Learn More[presented oral argument before the Supreme Court, resulting in unanimous decision adopting defense position for start date of COLA increases in total disability and life pension cases]
In Duncan/Baxter v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (X.S.) (2011)*, the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a workers' compensation claimant could receive benefits for psychological injury resulting from the cumulative effects of a work environment, rather than a specific traumatic event. The court ruled that workers' compensation benefits can be awarded for psychological injuries stemming from cumulative work-related stress, provided that the injury is established as a substantial factor in causing the condition. The decision emphasized that the nature of psychological injuries, particularly those arising from ongoing work conditions, is recognized under workers' compensation laws.
Learn More[en banc decision requiring lien claimants to affirmatively demonstrate the reasonableness of their own charges]
In *SB Surgery Center v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tapia) (2008)*, the California Court of Appeal examined whether a workers' compensation claimant could be reimbursed for medical expenses related to surgery performed at an outpatient surgery center. The central issue was whether the treatment provided by the surgery center was considered reasonable and necessary under the workers' compensation system. The court upheld the WCAB's decision to authorize reimbursement, affirming that the medical treatment met the standards for compensability and was properly covered under the workers' compensation laws.
Learn More[Court of Appeal decision permitting apportionment of non-industrial vocational factors in a LeBoeuf claim]
In *Hertz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Aguilar) (2008)*, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied the law regarding the calculation of permanent disability benefits. The case involved the interpretation of how to evaluate and rate permanent disability claims. The court upheld the WCAB's decision, finding that the board had correctly applied the legal standards and formulas for calculating disability benefits. This decision reinforced the WCAB's authority and methodology in determining compensation for permanent disabilities.
Learn More[en banc decision upholding the validity of the new Permanent Disability Rating Schedule against an attack by CAAA on the DFEC factor]
In Boughner v. CompUSA/Zurich (2008), the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) addressed the issue of whether a worker was entitled to benefits for a specific injury under workers’ compensation laws. The case involved disputes over the nature and extent of the injury, as well as the adequacy of the medical treatment provided. The WCAB ruled in favor of the claimant, determining that the injury was compensable and that the treatment and benefits were justified under the law. The decision reinforced the standards for evaluating and awarding workers’ compensation benefits for specific injuries.
Learn More[unanimous Supreme Court decision overruling Dykes / Nabors, and instead confirming that apportionment calculations are to be made pursuant to Formula A, mandating the subtraction of percentages of disability in all cases of apportionment]
In Brodie v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board / Welcher v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2007), the California Supreme Court addressed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had the authority to adjust or overturn findings related to the extent of permanent disability and the calculation of benefits. The case involved claims of procedural errors and disputes over the proper application of workers’ compensation laws. The court upheld the WCAB’s decisions, affirming that the board had correctly applied legal standards and had the authority to make necessary adjustments to ensure fair compensation. This ruling emphasized the WCAB’s role in interpreting and implementing workers’ compensation statutes.
Learn More[finding substantial evidence supporting award of apportionment under L.C. section 4663, based on Escobedo]
In Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Gatten) (2006), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly determined the extent of a worker’s disability and the proper amount of compensation. The case involved disputes over the interpretation of disability ratings and the application of workers’ compensation statutes. The court upheld the WCAB’s decisions, finding that the board had appropriately applied the relevant legal standards and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s disability and benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s authority in assessing disability claims and ensuring compliance with workers’ compensation laws.
Learn More[holding that a statutory benefit to injured worker's estate was unconstitutional on the basis of extensive legislative history provided to court]
In Six Flags v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Rackchamroon) (2006), the California Court of Appeal examined whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly assessed and awarded benefits for a worker’s injury. The case focused on disputes over the extent of the injury, the appropriate level of compensation, and the application of workers’ compensation laws. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had correctly applied legal standards and provided a fair assessment of the claimant’s condition and benefits. This ruling emphasized the WCAB’s authority to determine the scope of workers’ compensation claims and benefits.
Learn More[proper application of revised rating schedule to pre-1/1/05 injuries]
In Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn/Republic Indemnity (2006), the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a workers’ compensation claimant could recover benefits for certain types of injuries under the applicable workers’ compensation laws. The case focused on the interpretation of coverage and eligibility for benefits related to specific types of occupational injuries. The court ruled that the claimant was entitled to benefits, affirming that the injuries in question were compensable under the workers’ compensation system. This decision clarified the scope of coverage and eligibility for benefits in workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[new Labor Code section 4663 permits apportionment to pre-existing non-disabling conditions, including pathology, if supported by substantial medical evidence]
In Escobedo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2005), the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an injured worker could be compensated for cumulative trauma injuries under workers’ compensation laws. The case examined the application of “cumulative trauma” in determining entitlement to benefits, especially when multiple injuries or ongoing work conditions contribute to the claimant’s condition. The court ruled that workers are entitled to compensation for cumulative trauma injuries if it can be shown that work-related factors were a significant cause of the condition. This decision clarified how cumulative trauma is evaluated and compensated under workers’ compensation law.
Learn More131 Cal. App. 4th 517, 31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 789, 70 CCC 999 [new laws on apportionment under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664, as enacted by SB 899, apply to all pending cases regardless of whether an interlocutory order has issued]
In Rio Linda School District v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Scheftner) (2005), the California Court of Appeal examined the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly determined the compensability of a worker’s injury. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury, the adequacy of medical treatment, and the calculation of benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had properly applied legal standards in evaluating the claimant’s injury and determining entitlement to benefits. This ruling affirmed the WCAB’s authority in assessing and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[new penalty rules under Labor Code section 5814, as provided by SB 899, apply to all pending cases regardless of date of injury]
In Green v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2005), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly determined the compensability of an injury and the appropriate level of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the application of workers’ compensation laws to determine the claimant’s entitlement to benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had properly applied legal standards and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s injury and compensation. This decision underscored the WCAB’s role in assessing and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[Supreme Court held that 90-day period for employer to deny claim and avoid presumption of compensability runs from date applicant files Claim Form with employer]
In Honeywell v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Wagner) (2005), the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied the law in determining the compensability of a worker’s injury. The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of workers’ compensation statutes related to the extent and nature of the injury and the proper calculation of benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had applied legal standards appropriately and made a fair assessment of the claimant’s injury and benefits. This decision reinforced the WCAB’s authority in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and the application of statutory provisions.
Learn More[PTP presumption of correctness rebutted]
In Miranda v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2004), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly assessed and awarded benefits for a worker’s injury. The case focused on disputes regarding the nature of the injury, the adequacy of medical evidence, and the appropriate compensation. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had appropriately applied the relevant legal standards and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s condition and benefits. This decision reinforced the WCAB’s role in determining the compensability of workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[actual events of employment for psychiatric injury]
In PG&E v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Bryan) (2004), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly determined the extent of a worker’s disability and the associated benefits. The case involved disputes over the appropriate rating of disability and the compensability of related medical expenses. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had properly applied legal standards in assessing the claimant’s disability and determining benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s role in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[psychiatric compensable consequences - six-month requirement]
In Wal-Mart v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Garcia) (2003), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly assessed the compensability of a worker’s injury and the appropriate level of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury, the adequacy of medical evidence, and the calculation of benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had correctly applied legal standards and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s injury and compensation. This decision highlighted the WCAB’s authority in determining and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[rebuttal of PTP presumption of correctness]
In Daly v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2002), the California Court of Appeal examined whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly applied workers’ compensation laws to determine the extent of a worker’s disability and the corresponding benefits. The case focused on the accuracy of the disability rating and the adequacy of medical evidence provided. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had appropriately applied legal standards and made a fair determination regarding the claimant’s injury and compensation. This ruling affirmed the WCAB’s role in assessing and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More�[lien claimant's burden of proof]
In The 4600 Group v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2002), the California Court of Appeal addressed issues related to the compensability of a worker’s injury and the determination of benefits under workers’ compensation laws. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied legal standards in evaluating the claimant’s entitlement to benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had properly assessed the injury and awarded benefits in accordance with workers’ compensation statutes. This decision reinforced the authority of the WCAB in handling compensation claims and applying relevant legal principles.
Learn More[psychiatric compensable consequences - predominant causation]
In Lockheed Martin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (McCullough) (2002), the California Court of Appeal reviewed the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)’s determination regarding the compensability of a worker’s injury and the appropriate level of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the adequacy of the disability rating provided. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had correctly applied legal standards and provided a fair assessment of the claimant’s disability and benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s role in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and ensuring proper application of workers’ compensation laws.
Learn More[substantial medical evidence]
In Sanabrea v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2001), the California Court of Appeal reviewed the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)’s decision regarding the compensability of a worker’s injury and the calculation of benefits. The case involved issues related to the interpretation of workers’ compensation laws and the evaluation of medical evidence. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had correctly applied legal standards and provided a fair assessment of the claimant’s condition and entitlement to benefits. This decision reinforced the WCAB’s authority in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and ensuring proper application of relevant statutes.
Learn More[proportionality in penalty assessment]
In County of San Luis Obispo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Barnes) (2001), the California Court of Appeal addressed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly determined the compensability of a worker’s injury and the appropriate amount of benefits. The case involved disputes over the interpretation of workers’ compensation laws and the assessment of the worker’s condition. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had applied the legal standards appropriately and made a fair determination regarding the claimant’s entitlement to benefits. This decision affirmed the WCAB’s authority in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and applying relevant statutes.
Learn More[insufficiency of WCAB decision]
In Pacific Bell v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Russell) (2001), the California Court of Appeal examined the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)’s decision on the compensability of a worker’s injury and the calculation of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and whether the WCAB had correctly applied workers’ compensation laws in determining the appropriate level of compensation. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had appropriately assessed the claimant’s condition and applied legal standards correctly. This ruling emphasized the WCAB’s role in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[exclusivity rule]
In Rosales v. Depuy Ace Medical (2000), the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a workers’ compensation claimant could receive benefits for injuries related to a specific medical device. The case involved disputes over the compensability of injuries caused by the medical device and whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied workers’ compensation laws in determining entitlement to benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the injuries were compensable and that the board had appropriately assessed the claimant’s condition and the associated benefits. This ruling clarified the application of workers’ compensation laws regarding injuries related to medical devices.
Learn More[132a violation]
In UPS v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Gonzales) (1999), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly determined the extent of a worker’s disability and the appropriate benefits. The case involved disputes over the compensability of the injury and the adequacy of the medical evidence presented. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had correctly applied legal standards in evaluating the claimant’s condition and determining benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s authority in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and ensuring fair application of workers’ compensation laws.
Learn More[sufficiency of evidence]
In Polte v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1998), the California Court of Appeal examined the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly assessed and awarded benefits for a worker’s injury. The case involved disputes over the compensability of the injury and the application of workers’ compensation laws to determine the appropriate level of benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had properly applied legal standards and made a fair evaluation of the claimant’s condition and entitlement to benefits. This decision highlighted the WCAB’s role in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and ensuring adherence to statutory requirements.
Learn More[penalty for inadvertent delay]
In Stuart v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1998), the California Supreme Court reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly assessed and determined the extent of a worker’s disability and benefits. The case focused on the proper application of workers’ compensation laws to the claimant’s injury and the calculation of benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had applied legal standards appropriately and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s condition and entitlement to benefits. This decision emphasized the WCAB’s role in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
Learn More[species of benefit for penalty]
In Avalon Bay Foods v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Moore) (1998), the California Supreme Court addressed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied the law in determining the compensability of a worker’s injury and the calculation of benefits. The case involved disputes over the extent of the injury and the adequacy of the benefits awarded. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had appropriately applied legal standards and made a fair determination regarding the claimant’s condition and entitlement to benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s authority in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[settlement of vocational rehabilitation costs]
In Mar v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1998), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly assessed the compensability of a worker’s injury and the calculation of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the appropriate level of compensation. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had correctly applied legal standards in evaluating the claimant’s condition and determining benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s role in adjudicating and ensuring proper application of workers’ compensation laws.
Learn More[new and further disability]
In Green v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1998), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly determined the compensability of a worker’s injury and the calculation of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the adequacy of medical evidence. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had applied legal standards correctly and made a fair assessment of the claimant’s injury and entitlement to benefits. This decision emphasized the WCAB’s role in adjudicating and evaluating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[settlement of vocational rehabilitation]
In Estrada v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1997), the California Court of Appeal examined whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied the law in determining the extent of a worker’s disability and the appropriate benefits. The case involved disputes over the compensability of the injury and the adequacy of the evidence used to calculate benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had properly interpreted workers’ compensation laws and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s condition and benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s authority in handling workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[multiple penalties]
In Christian v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1997), the California Supreme Court addressed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly applied the law in determining the compensability of a worker’s injury and the extent of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had correctly interpreted and applied workers’ compensation laws in evaluating the claimant’s condition and entitlement to benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s authority and methodology in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[retroactive VRMA]
In Buza v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1997), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly determined the compensability of a worker’s injury and the appropriate level of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the interpretation of workers’ compensation laws. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had properly applied legal standards and provided a fair assessment of the claimant’s injury and entitlement to benefits. This decision reinforced the authority of the WCAB in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[constitutionality of apportionment laws]
In Blevins v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1997), the California Court of Appeal reviewed the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)’s determination regarding the compensability of a worker’s injury and the appropriate level of benefits. The case focused on disputes over the nature of the injury and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had correctly applied legal standards and made a fair assessment of the claimant’s condition and benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s role in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[statute of limitations for VR]
In Bishop v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1997), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly applied the law in determining the extent of a worker’s disability and the appropriate benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the compensation awarded. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had correctly interpreted workers’ compensation statutes and made a fair assessment of the claimant’s condition and benefits. This ruling emphasized the WCAB’s authority in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and ensuring proper application of the law.
Learn More�[dismissal of employer]
In Tri-Spur Investments v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1996), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly assessed and awarded benefits for a worker’s injury. The case involved disputes over the compensability of the injury and the application of workers’ compensation laws. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had correctly applied legal standards and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s condition and entitlement to benefits. This decision affirmed the WCAB’s authority in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims and ensuring proper application of the law.
Learn More[penalty during disputed liability]
In Saldana v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1994), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had properly determined the compensability of a worker’s injury and the calculation of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the adequacy of the evidence used to determine compensation. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had applied legal standards correctly and provided a fair evaluation of the claimant’s condition and benefits. This decision reinforced the WCAB’s authority in handling and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[substantial evidence for psychiatric injury]
In Reives v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1992), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied the law in determining the extent of a worker’s disability and the associated benefits. The case involved disputes over the compensability of the injury and the interpretation of workers’ compensation statutes. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had properly assessed the claimant’s condition and applied legal standards in awarding benefits. This decision emphasized the WCAB’s authority in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[res judicata and employer negligence]
In Reynaga v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1991), the California Court of Appeal examined whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly applied the law in determining the extent of a worker’s disability and the corresponding benefits. The case involved disputes over the compensability of the injury and the adequacy of medical evidence used to assess the benefits. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, affirming that the board had properly applied legal standards and made a fair determination regarding the claimant’s condition and benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s role in evaluating and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[132a discrimination under union contract]
In Johnson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1991), the California Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly assessed the compensability of a worker’s injury and the appropriate level of benefits. The case involved disputes over the interpretation of workers’ compensation laws and the evaluation of medical evidence. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had properly applied legal standards in evaluating the claimant’s condition and determining benefits. This decision reinforced the WCAB’s authority in handling and adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More[insurance coverage]
In Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Baldinelli) (1991), the California Court of Appeal examined whether the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) had correctly determined the compensability of a worker’s injury and the appropriate level of benefits. The case involved disputes over the nature of the injury and the adequacy of the evidence used to assess compensation. The court upheld the WCAB’s decision, finding that the board had applied legal standards appropriately and made a fair evaluation of the claimant’s condition and entitlement to benefits. This ruling reinforced the WCAB’s role in adjudicating workers’ compensation claims.
Learn More