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. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karasyk v. Marc Commodities Corp.

Philip Karasyk, a commodity futures trader, sued Marc Commodities Corp., a futures commission merchant, alleging fraudulent transfer of crude oil futures contracts into his account, violating the Commodity Exchange Act. Karasyk asserted fraud and negligence claims after suffering significant financial losses. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, dismiss for lack of particularity in fraud allegations (Rule 9(b)), and join Chicago Corp. (Rule 19(a)). The court denied arbitration, ruling NFA rules didn't mandate it for Karasyk as an Associate Member. However, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to meet Rule 9(b)'s pleading standards regarding fraud, granting leave for Karasyk to replead.

FraudCommodity Exchange ActFederal Arbitration ActRule 9(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedurePleading StandardsScienterIntent to DefraudFutures ContractsNational Futures AssociationMandatory Arbitration
References
13
Case No. ADJ3699477 (OAK 0345390)
Regular
Jul 05, 2011

GARY TOMEI vs. BAY ALARM COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking authorization for cervical surgery, which was denied based on the treating physician's request not being properly formatted per AD Rule 9792.6(o). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the initial denial was due to the applicant's attorney adding a notation to the physician's report instead of the physician clearly marking it as a spinal surgery authorization request. The Board rescinded the original award, deferring the cervical surgery issue and ordering an expedited second opinion from a designated orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGary TomeiBay Alarm CompanyTravelers Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyADJ3699477Opinion and Order Granting Reconsiderationcervical surgerylumbar spineAdministrative Director Rule 9792.6(o)treating physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. ADJ8608456 MF\nADJ8608504\nADJ8523009\nADJ8551858\nADJ8609068
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

HORACIO CABRERA, Deceased MARIBEL BARAJAS, Widow, Guardian Ad\nLitem for LITZY CABRERA, LESLY\nCABRERA, MARIA CABRERA AND\nKASSANDRA CABRERA; BRIANNA\nCABRERA, for herself and Guardian Ad Litem for STEFANI ARIAS, ANTONIO SOLARES, MODESTO DOMINGUEZ, JOHNATHAN ALONSO vs. MV CONTRACTING, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of a ruling finding a fatal motor vehicle accident and related injuries industrial. The employer argued the administrative law judge erred in admitting evidence and presuming compensability due to a failure to issue timely denial notices. The employer also contended the "going and coming rule" barred the claims as the accident occurred during a standard commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings that the injuries were industrial and not barred by the going and coming rule, largely adopting the judge's reasoning.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionRulings and Order Admitting EvidenceFindings of FactMotor Vehicle AccidentIndustrial InjuriesFatal Industrial InjuryDependentsNotice of Denial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District Council No. 9 v. APC Painting, Inc.

Plaintiff District Council No. 9 (the Union) initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act to enforce several arbitration awards against APC Painting, Inc., its related APC and Apollo entities, and individual Gregory Fucci. The Union sought to confirm awards from the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) regarding violations of a collective bargaining agreement, including underpayment of wages and employment of non-union workers. Defendants moved to dismiss claims against Fucci and the Apollo entities, arguing non-participation in arbitration and denial of alter ego liability. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied the defendants' motion, allowing the alter ego theory to be pursued, and granted the Union's motion for partial summary judgment. The court confirmed the arbitration awards against the APC entities, affirming the limited judicial review of such awards and rejecting defendants' objections.

Labor LawArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRA Section 301Alter Ego DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissWage ViolationsFringe Benefits
References
85
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Case No. ADJ3308341 (OAK 0279019)
Regular
Jul 27, 2009

MIGHAEL COLEMAN vs. RAITO, INC., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, LTD.

The WCAB granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision awarding applicant further medical treatment, including spinal surgery. Defendant argued that the medical report did not comply with AD Rule 9792.7(o) and that the dispute was resolved at an expedited hearing.

Utilization ReviewAD Rule 9792.6(o)Labor Code section 4610(g)(1)Labor Code section 4062(b)Labor Code section 4062.3(j)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judgespinal surgery
References
2
Case No. ADJ9346293
En Banc
Jan 13, 2020

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to hold that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 10133.54 is invalid. The WCAB reasoned that the rule exceeds the AD's statutory authority and improperly restricts the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over supplemental job displacement benefits (SJDB). The board also intends to affirm its prior decision that an employer must make a bona fide offer of work to an injured employee to be exempt from providing an SJDB voucher.

AD Rule 10133.54Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitBona Fide OfferExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative DirectorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInmate LaborerStatutory AuthorityEn Banc DecisionReconsideration
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 7,250 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