Stay up to date with latest news from M&F Case Briefs
Case Briefs
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
In the case of Joseph Mayor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (W.C.A.B.) (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 713, filed August 28, 2024, the Court of Appeal has
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST…
In August 2023, our case brief addressed the panel decision of Marva Smith v. Solar Turbines, Inc., ADJ12010500, involving a vexatious applicant. In Smith, the
THE POWER AND PROMINENCE OF APPORTIONMENT
In Spencer v. Oakland Unified School District, ADJ13057141, May 16, 2024, Order Denying Reconsideration, the applicant, a school principal, suffered a psychiatric injury when a
THE MYTH OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THAT A SETTLEMENT IS ACTUALLY A SETTLEMENT
WHITE v. CITY and COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 129 Applicant alleged a work-related cumulative trauma (CT) injury to the
“IT’S A LONG WAY TO TIPPERARY” FOR THE MARCH OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
In the intricate realm of workers’ compensation law, where fairness and due process are paramount, a recent case before the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCOPE OF A COMPROMISE AND RELEASE
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCOPE OF A COMPROMISE AND RELEASE In Jaime Estrela v. Permanente Medical Group 2023 WL 6061161 (Cal.W.C.A.B.), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals
ALWAYS REMEMBER THE BEST DEFENSE IS A STRONG OFFENSE
In Gerald Zelnik v. Office of Statewide Health Planning,[1] the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board confirmed that defendants have a right to assert a good faith
THE SHORT RIDE HOME: THE FURTHER SHAPING OF THE PREMISES LINE RULE
In Rose Jones v. Regents of the University of California (10/31/23) 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 281, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth district of
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE VOCATIONAL APPORTIONMENT EMPIRE
Can a vocational expert’s opinion on apportionment supersede and/or replace medical apportionment determined by a treating or evaluating physician for the purposes of total permanent
THE TALE OF THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
The recent panel decision, Marva Smith v. Solar Turbines, Inc., ADJ12010500, reads like a crime thriller novel with a dizzying, whirlwind of conspiracy theories postulated