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. 7250/00, 491/00, 6197/00, 11473/99
Regular Panel Decision

Ballard v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

The case involves motions for consolidation and severance of four personal injury actions stemming from asbestos exposure at Eastman Kodak Company. The plaintiffs sought to consolidate the Ballard (7250/00) and Cooros (491/00) cases, and separately, the Duemmel (6197/00) and Keller (11473/99) cases. Defendants CBS Corporation, R.E. Hebert and Company, Inc., and Rochester Industrial Insulation, Inc., opposed consolidation, with the latter also moving for severance. Presiding Judge Raymond E. Cornelius, J., reviewed criteria for consolidation in mass tort asbestos litigation, including common worksite, occupation, exposure time, disease type, and plaintiff status (living/deceased). The court denied the consolidation of Ballard and Cooros, finding undue prejudice due to differing diseases and direct/indirect exposure among deceased and living claimants. Similarly, the court denied the full consolidation of Duemmel and Keller but granted severance for the deceased Pschirrer claimant from the other Duemmel plaintiffs, allowing his claim to be consolidated with the Keller case due to similarities in occupation and indirect exposure.

Asbestos LitigationCase ConsolidationCase SeverancePersonal InjuryMass TortPrejudice ArgumentCPLR 602(a)CPLR 603MesotheliomaAsbestosis
References
13
Case No. 00-CR-159A, 00-CR-185A
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Boorman

This case concerns the government's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's decision to release defendant Russell James Boorman on bail, despite multiple indictments for drug trafficking and firearm offenses. Defendant Boorman was initially indicted on drug charges (00-CR-159A) and subsequently on additional drug and weapon charges found during his arrest (00-CR-185A). Magistrate Judge Foschio denied the government's detention motions and set bail for both indictments. District Judge Arcara conducted a de novo review, considering the nature of the offenses, the weight of evidence, and the defendant's extensive criminal history, which included prior violent and drug-related felony convictions, some committed while under court supervision. The Court found clear and convincing evidence that no conditions would reasonably assure community safety, given the defendant's violent past and likelihood to re-offend, thereby revoking the release orders and ordering detention.

Pretrial detentionDrug traffickingMethamphetamineMarijuanaFirearm possessionCriminal historyViolent behaviorRebuttable presumptionDanger to communityBail revocation
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00058
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Martinez v. 250 W. 43 Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed an order that granted summary judgment dismissing third-party claims for common-law contribution and indemnification against I & G Group, Inc. The lower court had dismissed these claims based on a prior worker's compensation board finding that I & G Group, Inc. was the plaintiff's employer. However, the appellate court held that the appellants (250 West 43 Owner, LLC, et al.) were not given notice of the worker's compensation hearing and thus lacked the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence. Citing Liss v Trans Auto Sys., the court concluded that the board's prior determination of employer identity could not have preclusive effect on parties who did not participate in the hearing. Therefore, the third-party claims challenging the identity of the employer should not have been dismissed.

Summary JudgmentWorker's CompensationCommon-Law ContributionIndemnificationEmployer LiabilityExclusive RemedyPrior AdjudicationPreclusive EffectNotice RequirementDue Process
References
6
Case No. ADJ8361822
Regular
Aug 03, 2015

LORENA CHAVEZ vs. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, ESIS

This case concerns ABC Interpreting, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision awarding them $180.00 for interpreter services. ABC Interpreting sought $250.00, claiming entitlement to the pre-established market rate, plus interest and penalties for late payment. The Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's award because ABC Interpreting failed to provide adequate documentation of market rate, their qualifications as an interpreter, and because Labor Code section 5811 does not authorize penalties and interest. The Board found the $180.00 award consistent with the reasonable and customary rate for interpreter services in the applicable geographic area.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterpreter FeesLabor Code Section 5811Market RateSuperior Court Fee ScheduleQualified InterpreterDeposition ServicesUntimely PaymentInterest and PenaltyAmended Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case, presided over by District Judge Spatt, addresses post-trial motions concerning attorney's fees and damages following a class action. Initially, plaintiffs sued employer Robert Abbey, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) (settled for $110,000) and both the employer and Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of fair representation. After class decertification, the claims of fourteen plaintiffs against the Union went to a jury, which found the Union liable for breaching its duty of fair representation and awarded compensatory damages to eight of them. The Court denied the Union's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but vacated the jury's compensatory damage award, instead granting nominal damages of $1 to each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs due to lack of evidentiary support for the monetary award. The Court also determined that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to recover attorney's fees for the Union's breach of duty of fair representation, calculating these fees based on reasonable hours and rates, and awarded specific amounts to the law firms Hall & Sloan ($4,775.00) and Davis & Eisenberg ($42,475.00), for a total of $47,250.00. Additionally, the Court awarded $1,177.15 in costs and denied the plaintiffs' application for an award of prejudgment interest.

Attorney's FeesNominal DamagesBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActSettlementJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsLodestar MethodClass Action Decertification
References
36
Case No. ADJ10405221
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

CARMEN MARTINEZ vs. SAMBRAILO PACKAGING, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant insurer sought reconsideration of an order requiring them to pay $540.00 for interpreter services. Following mediation, the defendant and the interpreter, Victor Fridman, reached a settlement for $250.00. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the original order and approved the agreed-upon settlement. The Board commended the parties for resolving the dispute through mediation.

ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJInterpreter servicesMediation conferenceSettlement agreementRescindApproveDefendant's counsel
References
0
Case No. ADJ6620175
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

CAMELLA MORA GONZALEZ vs. KAY'S CLEANERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is imposing sanctions under Labor Code § 5813 against Innovative Medical Management and lien claimant Priority Care Medical Transportation for $1,000.00, jointly and severally. Additionally, sanctions of $250.00 are imposed against Louis Heard, the lien claimant's hearing representative. These sanctions were ordered due to a failure to object to a previously issued notice of intention, following the Board's affirmation of the dismissal of the lien claim. The sanctioned parties did not provide any written objection demonstrating good cause to avoid the sanctions.

Labor Code § 5813SanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimDismissalPriority Care Medical TransportationInnovative Medical ManagementLouis HeardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHearing Representative
References
0
Case No. ADJ2965749 (LAO 0846150) ADJ626279 (LAO 0846151)
Regular
Sep 20, 2010

SOFIA SAINZ vs. CUSTOM FOOD PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns sanctions imposed on lien claimant Oak Anesthesia Associates for failing to properly file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and for not responding to an Order to Show Cause. The WCJ initially sanctioned the lien claimant $1,000.00 for these violations, specifically the failure to include a required verification and causing an unnecessary hearing. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the imposition of sanctions justified. Ultimately, the Board amended the sanction amount to $250.00, affirming that sanctions were warranted for the lien claimant's procedural non-compliance.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Order to Pay SanctionsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedBoard Rule 10770.6VerificationSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Case-in-ChiefWCJ's Report
References
5
Case No. ADJ4702870 (LAO 0757820)
Regular
May 20, 2016

Rubie Johnson vs. Los Angeles County Mental Health

This case involves sanctions imposed on lien claimant David Silver, M.D., and his representatives for failing to appear at a properly noticed lien conference without good cause. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted reconsideration to affirm the sanctions and attorney fees awarded. The Board found that the excuses provided for the non-appearance were unreasonable and constituted bad faith actions under Labor Code section 5813. Consequently, Silver and his representatives were ordered to pay $\$250.00$ in sanctions to the General Fund and $\$2,100.00$ in attorney fees to the defendant.

Labor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561WCAB Rule 10770.1Lien ConferenceFailure to AppearBad Faith ActionsSanctionsAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationJoint and Several Liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ3998532 (VNO 0450822) ADJ1852772 (VNO 0450819)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

JOY A. SKEETE-PENEGAR (JOY PENEGAR) vs. BANK OF AMERICA, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

Lien claimants Dr. Silver and Dr. Bresler petitioned for reconsideration after the WCJ limited their fees to the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending Dr. Bresler's award due to calculation errors from $8,235.00 to $8,157.41, and affirming Dr. Silver's award of $250.00. The Board found that the OMFS applied as the employer accepted liability for treatment and paid some services, and the lien claimants failed to prove fees exceeding the OMFS were reasonable. Penalties under Labor Code section 5814 were denied as they are not payable to lien claimants.

OMFSPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsBill Review ExpertLabor Code Section 4603.2(b)(1)PenaltiesSelf-Procured TreatmentCompensable Industrial InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerReasonable Fee
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 522 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