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. ADJ7129675 ADJ6931789 ADJ6930948
Regular
Mar 23, 2017

REGGIE MANANQUIL vs. APPLIED MATERIALS, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying home health care. The WCAB initially affirmed the denial based on the applicant failing to prove services weren't regularly performed prior to injury per Labor Code section 5307.8. However, upon reconsideration, the WCAB amended the decision to award home health care services, finding medical necessity established by substantial evidence. The WCAB deferred the section 5307.8 issue for further record development while affirming other aspects of the original order.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND ORDERWCJLABOR CODEINDUSTRIAL INJURYHOME HEALTH CARESUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCEBURDEN OF PROOFSECTION 5307.8
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nardolillo v. Sovinsky

Plaintiffs, members of the Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Helpers Subordinate Union No. 8, sought to recover funds contributed by their employer to a trust fund. They argued that the discontinuation of employer contributions rendered them ineligible for benefits, making the trust's purpose impossible and leading to unjust enrichment by the fund. Defendants countered that such payments would violate the trust agreement and IRS provisions, maintaining that plaintiffs remained eligible. The court determined that the fund was a common trust, not individual escrowed accounts, and upheld the trustees' interpretation that ensured plaintiffs' continued eligibility, preventing a forfeiture of rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was denied, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Union Trust FundEmployee BenefitsEmployer ContributionsTrust AgreementBenefit EligibilityFund AdministrationBreach of TrustFiduciary DutyDismissal MotionLabor-Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LoVerde v. 8 Prince Street Associates, LLC

Nicholas J. LoVerde, Jr., an employee of Timothy Kelly, suffered injuries from a scaffold fall while working on a building owned by defendants John Billone, Sr. and 8 Prince Street Associates, LLC. Plaintiffs initiated a personal injury action citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants appealed, contending plaintiff was not covered by Labor Law provisions due to how he was hired, and that his own actions caused the accident. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants had contracted for the work and failed to prove plaintiff's conduct was the sole cause of the incident.

Scaffold AccidentPersonal Injury LitigationLabor Law § 240(1)Building DemolitionProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationComparative NegligenceWorker Safety Regulations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North 7-8 Investors, LLC v. Newgarden

The petitioner, North 7-8 Investors, LLC, sought a license under RPAPL 881 to enter the adjoining property of respondent Mark A. Newgarden for construction purposes, specifically for developing two seven-story buildings. Initially, the petitioner requested extensive access for shoring, roof protection, and scaffolding, leading to lengthy negotiations and respondent's objections regarding safety, architectural plans, and reimbursement for professional fees. As a result, the petitioner modified its plans significantly, reducing the need for direct access and proposing a cantilevered safety balcony into the respondent's air space. The court granted the petition for a one-year license with specific terms, including conditions for the safety balcony, insurance, indemnification, a monthly license fee of $3,500, and reimbursement for respondent's reasonable architectural and legal fees incurred in negotiation and enforcement, while denying the respondent's cross-motion for dismissal and sanctions.

Property LawReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawRPAPL 881License to EnterAdjoining PropertyConstruction LawAccess AgreementAttorney's FeesArchitectural FeesLicense Fees
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Public Administrator of Kings County v. 8 B.W.

This case concerns an appeal by defendants third-party plaintiffs regarding an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to unresolved factual issues concerning the accident's cause and its relation to elevation risks. Concurrently, the court conditionally granted 8 B.W., LLC's cross-motion for common-law indemnification, as no evidence of its negligence was found. However, Freeport Construction Co.'s request for common-law indemnification was denied, as it failed to demonstrate a lack of active negligence in relation to a dangerous premises condition. Remaining issues concerning Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) were not addressed as they were still pending.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Common-Law IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewElevation-Related RiskNegligenceWorksite SafetyVicarious Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ1541863 (SBR 0317921) ADJ1955130 (SBR 0318072)
Regular
Oct 24, 2008

CAROL TELIZYN vs. BRASWELL'S COLONIAL CARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed Arrowback Medical Group's (AMG) petition for reconsideration because it was successive and not taken from a final order, as the prior decision remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board also corrected the caption of its August 8, 2008 decision nunc pro tunc to include both relevant case numbers. AMG's core argument regarding the applicability of an expired fee schedule was previously addressed and found to be without merit.

Nunc Pro TuncPetition for ReconsiderationSuccessive PetitionFinal OrderInterim OrderRemandCaption CorrectionRepackaged PharmaceuticalsOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLien Claimant
References
10
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2002

McAllister v. McAllister

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, entered on October 8, 2002. The judgment had previously dissolved the marriage, ordered the defendant to pay maintenance, and awarded counsel fees to the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed the awards of maintenance and counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the court modified the distributive award, agreeing with the defendant that the plaintiff's share of the net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence should be reduced. This adjustment was made because the trial court erroneously awarded the plaintiff the entire workers' compensation settlement instead of only the amount actually contributed as separate property towards the marital residence repair, resulting in a $1,739.78 reduction in the plaintiff's share.

Matrimonial lawMarital residenceDistributive awardWorkers' compensation settlementMaintenanceCounsel feesProperty divisionSpousal supportJudicial discretionAppellate review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 726 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