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. ADJ801957 (LAO 0798054) ADJ2438083 (LAO 0851450)
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ROBERTO CORTEZ vs. ESP 2000, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves two industrial injuries sustained by Roberto Cortez as a deliveryman. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a joint findings and award, confirming two separate injuries in 2000 and a cumulative trauma injury from 2000-2001. The Board also affirmed the judge's calculation of applicant's attorney's fees as a percentage of the award, rather than an hourly rate, despite a dispute over the application of Labor Code section 4066. Ultimately, the Board agreed with the judge's findings on liability and attorney's fees, affirming the original award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoberto CortezESP 2000 Inc.California Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont Insurance CompanyTIG Insurance CompanyADJ801975ADJ2438083specific injurycumulative trauma
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dow Electric, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 910

Plaintiff Dow Electric Inc. sought to vacate a Labor-Management Committee's award for violating collective bargaining agreements, while Defendant Local Union 910 IBEW counterclaimed for confirmation. The dispute centered on whether Dow Electric Inc. effectively terminated its collective bargaining authority with the Association before the 2000-2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) came into effect. The Court found that Plaintiff's July 31, 1998, letters unequivocally terminated the Association’s collective bargaining authority, and subsequent correspondence did not retract this. Therefore, the 2000-2003 CBA did not bind Plaintiff, and the Committee lacked jurisdiction over grievances based on it. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding the 2000-2003 CBA award, vacating the $991,629.89 award. However, the Court affirmed the Committee's $63,011.48 award for violations of the 1997-2000 CBA, ruling that disputes based on acts prior to an agreement's expiration can still be arbitrated, and the awards for interest, liquidated damages, and back pay were plausibly grounded in the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawUnionSummary JudgmentArbitrationContract TerminationMulti-Employer Bargaining UnitPre-hire AgreementGrievanceAudit
References
8
Case No. ADJ2502324 (POM 0281213) ADJ964225 (RIV 0026851)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

Howard Gold vs. DENNY'S INC.; CIGA, BY ITS SERVICING AGENCY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, FOR HIH INSURANCE COMPANY, IN LIQUIDATION, CNA Insurance

This case concerns applicant Howard Gold's cumulative trauma injury claim for back and spine issues, spanning September 2, 2000 to October 18, 2000. Defendant CNA Insurance sought reconsideration, arguing the claim was time-barred because applicant had knowledge of his disability and its industrial causation by October 2000. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied CNA's petition, adopting the judge's report that found the claim not barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the Board affirmed a modification assigning CIGA responsibility for future medical treatment related to a prior 1997 injury, pending further development of the record on other insurance availability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCNA InsuranceDenny's Inc.CIGAHIH Insuranceliquidationcumulative traumastatute of limitationsindustrial injuryback and spine
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2000

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. DiPietro

The Supreme Court, New York County, entered a judgment on October 24, 2000, awarding the plaintiff $214,653.62. This judgment affirmed an earlier order from October 5, 2000, which had granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment in an action to recover monies due under a workers’ compensation policy issued to the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff's business records established the defendants’ nonpayment of insurance premiums, and the defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue. An appeal from the October 5, 2000 order was dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment. The action was also deemed timely commenced.

Workers' Compensation PolicyInsurance PremiumsSummary JudgmentBusiness RecordsNonpaymentAppealAffirmed JudgmentNew York LawAppellate DivisionTimeliness of Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2012

Claim of Poulton v. Griffin Manufacturing Co.

Griffin Manufacturing Company appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found the claimant did not violate Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Griffin alleged the claimant concealed a prior 1979 motor vehicle accident, linked a time-barred 1999 accident to a 2000 incident, and gave inconsistent accounts of the 2000 injury. The WCLJ found no credible evidence of fraud, and the Board affirmed, denying Griffin's application to reopen the 2000 claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported its determination that the claimant did not make a material misrepresentation, noting that Griffin acknowledged the 1999 date was likely a typo for a disclosed 1998 incident and inconsistent accounts created a credibility issue for the Board.

Workers' CompensationFraud AllegationMaterial MisrepresentationReopening ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMachinist InjuryEmployer Appeal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2006

Nazario v. Fortunato & Fortunato, PLLC

The plaintiff initiated a legal malpractice action against a law firm and its members, alleging their failure to timely commence a personal injury action for injuries sustained in a workplace accident in August 2000. Plaintiff claimed a falling pipe caused a right rotator cuff tear and herniated discs, although the defendants successfully handled the workers' compensation claim. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of causal relationship between the 2000 accident and the claimed injuries, revealing plaintiff's extensive history of similar injuries from prior and subsequent automobile accidents, which he failed to disclose to treating physicians. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff failed to counter the defendants' evidence and raise a triable issue of fact regarding the causation of his injuries from the August 2000 incident.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentCausationPrior AccidentsUndisclosed Medical HistoryWorkers' Compensation ClaimPersonal InjuryRotator CuffHerniated DiscsAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2005

Claim of Cook v. Staffing

Claimant sustained back and facial injuries in a 1994 work accident, leading to a 1997 award for facial disfigurement, no lost time, and continued back treatment, then case closure. In 2000, the case reopened to address medical reports and potential benefits, but was subsequently ruled resolved and "not truly closed" by a WCLJ, preventing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a liability shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. In 2004, claimant sought lost time compensation, and the Workers’ Compensation Board modified the WCLJ's decision, finding the case was indeed closed in 2000, thereby meeting the requirements for § 25-a liability to shift. The Special Fund appealed this determination, arguing the case was not truly closed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the finding of true closure in 2000 was supported by evidence showing all pending issues had been resolved and no further proceedings were contemplated at that time.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealSpecial Fund LiabilityCase Reopening CriteriaWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aPermanent Facial DisfigurementLost Time BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Court AffirmationDate of Case ClosureMedical Treatment Coverage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stokes v. Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim in 1999 for repetitive-motion injuries, and the case was initially closed in February 2000 by a WCLJ who found an occupational disease but no prima facie evidence of permanency, allowing for reopening. The case was reopened in 2001 to include shoulder injuries, leading to the involvement of prior employers General Motors Corporation and ITT Automotive for Workers’ Compensation Law § 44 apportionment. In 2003, claimant was deemed permanently partially disabled, and liability was apportioned, with all employers subsequently filing claims for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The WCLJ later determined that the case was "truly closed" in February 2000, making the reimbursement claims timely, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this determination. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the case was indeed truly closed in February 2000, which made the employers' reimbursement claims timely, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Motion InjuryCase ReopeningPermanency AssessmentApportionmentSpecial Disability FundTimeliness of ClaimWorkers’ Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ1653878 (VNO 0560916), ADJ4156597 (VNO 0561366)
Regular
Mar 21, 2019

ALFREDO BRIBIESCA vs. COLLISION 2000 AUTOBODY & PAINT, COLLISION 2000, INC., MINH V. LY, RAYMOND CAM

This case concerns a defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, which was dismissed as untimely. The petition was filed on January 23, 2019, but the deadline to file, based on the served Order Approving Compromise and Release on June 15, 2018, was July 10, 2018. Although the petition is dismissed procedurally, the Board noted the allegation of good cause to set aside the Compromise and Release. Therefore, the WCJ is directed to treat the petition as seeking to set aside the agreement for good cause and schedule a hearing.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseProof of ServiceGood CauseSet AsideDue Process
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 315 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