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. ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815)
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ROBERT WYNNE vs. LUMEND, INC., HARFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY (KEMPER)

This case involved a clerical error in the caption of a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the April 4, 2011 decision nunc pro tunc. The amendment corrected the caption to include only the relevant case number, ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815). No objections were received from the parties. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNunc Pro TuncReconsiderationAmend DecisionClerical ErrorCase CaptionAdministrative Law JudgePetition to ReassignTrial Level ProceedingsInsurer
References
2
Case No. 2011-01184 (consolidated with 2011-13741)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Houston

The City of Houston, as relator, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court's order granting a new trial. The underlying action involved a consolidated personal injury lawsuit by plaintiffs LaShonda Rochelle and Mattie Etubom against the City, stemming from a 2009 collision with a police patrol car. After a jury found the City 60% responsible but also upheld an affirmative defense, the trial court granted a new trial based on alleged City misconduct (spoliation, limine order violation) and purportedly newly-discovered evidence. Applying the standard set by In re Toyota Motor Sales, the appellate court reviewed the trial court's stated reasons. It concluded that the trial court abused its discretion, as the justifications for a new trial were either not legally supported, waived by the plaintiffs, or constituted harmless error. The court conditionally granted the mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its new trial order and enter judgment on the original jury verdict.

Mandamus ReviewNew Trial OrderAbuse of DiscretionSpoliation of EvidenceLimine Order ViolationNewly Discovered EvidenceJury Verdict ReinstatementTexas Civil Procedure Rule 320Governmental Immunity DefensePolice Misconduct
References
20
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Nov 04, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration on its own motion to make its prior September 26, 2011 decision, concerning the timelines for QME panel requests, apply prospectively to prevent disruption in ongoing cases.

Appeals Board MotionReconsiderationNotice of IntentionModify OpinionClerical ErrorAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel RequestLabor Code section 4062.2(b)Prospective Application
References
5
Case No. ADJ7232076
Significant
Nov 04, 2011

TSEGAY MESSELE vs. PITCO FOODS, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration on its own motion to clarify that its prior en banc decision regarding the timeline for selecting a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) will apply prospectively to panel requests made after September 26, 2011, to avoid disrupting ongoing cases.

AME proposalQME panelLabor Code section 4062.2(b)prospective applicationclerical error correctionreconsideration on motionen banc decisionDWC NewslineCalifornia Applicants' Attorneys Associationprematurity objection
References
6
Case No. ADJ2867157 (VNO 0476310) ADJ4292086 (VNO 0470201)
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

TERESA VASQUEZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a clerical error in a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order. The Board inadvertently listed January 21, 2011, as the filing and service date for its December 21, 2011, opinion and orders. The correction order clarifies that the correct filing and service date was indeed December 21, 2011. This amendment is a procedural correction of a minor administrative mistake.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical erroropinion and orderspetitions for reconsiderationremovalfiling and service datecorrect file datecorrect service dateADJ2867157VNO 0476310
References
0
Case No. 2011 NY Slip Op 93085, Motion No: 2011-1151
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2011

MATTER OF COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AM., LOCAL 1170 v. Town of Greece

MISSING

Motion for LeaveAppeal DeniedLabor LawUnion DisputeTown GovernmentCourt of AppealsNew York Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ3408070
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. COBBLESTONE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary for a lawyer: Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy sought reconsideration of a lien dismissal, arguing a representative was available by phone for trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The dismissal order was issued June 13, 2011, and served June 22, 2011, giving the lien claimant 25 days to file for reconsideration. The petition was filed on October 31, 2011, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJBiocare RX Specialty PharmacyLabor Code section 5903Code of Civ. Proc.section 1013
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Aponte v. NBTY, Inc.

The claimant was injured in March 2009 and subsequently stopped working. In 2010, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that he had voluntarily removed himself from the labor market. After a period of employment in 2011, the claimant ceased working again due to his contract expiring and underwent neck and back surgeries in December 2011 and May 2012, respectively. Despite being found to have a moderate partial disability after surgery, the Board denied lost wage benefits after August 2011, concluding that the claimant failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market and that his reduced earnings were not causally related to his disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that the claimant stopped working due to contract expiration, not disability, and made no subsequent attempts to find employment within his medical restrictions.

Workers' Compensation AppealLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary SeparationReduced Earning CapacityPermanent Partial DisabilityDisability Benefits DenialJob Search EffortsCausal RelationshipMedical RestrictionsContract Termination
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00867
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2019

Matter of Berg v. Planning Bd. of the City of Glen Cove

This appeal arises from a hybrid proceeding and action challenging determinations by the Planning Board of the City of Glen Cove regarding a major waterfront redevelopment project. Petitioners, residents of Glen Cove and surrounding areas, sought to review the Planning Board's 2011 adoption of a final environmental impact statement and a special use permit, as well as its 2015 resolution finding no need for a supplemental EIS for an amended plan. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the challenge to the 2011 determination as time-barred and the challenge to the 2015 determination on the merits. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the statute of limitations barred the review of the 2011 determination and that the Planning Board had taken a 'hard look' at environmental concerns for the 2015 determination, thus upholding the dismissal.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardZoningLand UseDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefStatute of LimitationsEstoppelHybrid Proceeding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz

Petitioners challenged Local Law No. 5 (2011) of the Town of New Paltz, aimed at protecting wetlands and watercourses, alleging non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and unconstitutional vagueness. The Supreme Court initially annulled the local law and negative declaration. On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board had fulfilled its SEQRA obligations by taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns and issuing a reasoned negative declaration. The court also found the 2011 law not unconstitutionally vague, providing sufficient notice to property owners. Additionally, the court rejected claims regarding unconstitutional conservation fees, preemption by state laws, and minor procedural irregularities, thereby dismissing the petition and upholding the constitutionality of Local Law No. 5 (2011).

Environmental LawSEQRALocal Government LawWetlands ProtectionDeclaratory Judgment ActionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstitutional ChallengeVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingsLand Use Regulation
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 444 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