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. ADJ4661956
Regular
Dec 24, 2008

JUAN HERNANDEZ vs. AMERICAN WASTE INDUSTRIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in the case of Juan Hernandez v. American Waste Industries. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for denial, and also noted the applicant's objection to the Notice of Intention to Submit was untimely filed. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationWCJNotice of Intention to SubmitDENIEDAMERICAN WASTE INDUSTRIESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ4661956JUAN HERNANDEZRiverside
References
0
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers v. Great American Industries, Inc.

This diversity action was brought by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, representing members of its former Local 204, against Linear, Inc. and its related corporate entities (Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation). The plaintiff alleged numerous violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement after Linear, Inc. ceased manufacturing operations. The court found Linear, Inc. liable for various employee benefits, including unpaid vacation pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, hospitalization benefits, and pension contributions. Critically, the court determined that Linear, Inc. operated as a mere instrumentality of its parent and grandparent corporations. Consequently, the corporate veil was pierced, holding Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation liable for Linear, Inc.'s labor obligations.

Labor RelationsCollective BargainingCorporate VeilParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityEmployee BenefitsPension DisputeVacation Pay ClaimsSupplemental Unemployment BenefitsFraudulent Transfers
References
24
Case No. ADJ15681350; ADJ14443327
Regular
Mar 24, 2025

JOHNNY RAGASA vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Johnny Ragasa, employed as a mechanic by Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc., sustained industrial injuries to his bilateral knees. A Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) issued Findings and Award, prompting Defendant Ace American Insurance to file a Petition for Reconsideration, alleging the QME's report was not substantial medical evidence. The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration but deferred a final decision, opting for further review of the merits and the complete record.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)substantial medical evidencebilateral kneestemporary total disabilitycumulative traumaarising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)Employment Development Department (EDD)section 5909
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. ADJ2913113
Regular
Jul 21, 2025

OSCAR VILLALOBOS vs. J.V. INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES, LTD.; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Oscar Villalobos, the applicant, who sustained injuries while employed by J.V. Industrial Companies. The defendant, J.V. Industrial Companies and Zurich American Insurance Company, sought to suspend proceedings because the applicant refused a follow-up medical examination by an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Newton. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB rescinded the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) February 3, 2025 Findings of Fact and returned the matter to the trial level, citing due process concerns and the necessity of a complete evidentiary record regarding the substantiality of the AME's reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 4053suspend proceedingssubstantial medical evidencedue processequitable tollingShipley doctrine
References
33
Case No. ADJ6436254
Regular
Feb 16, 2018

RAMON GOMEZ vs. ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board rescinded a previous Findings and Award that found the applicant sustained industrial injuries resulting in 70% permanent disability. Both the applicant and defendant had sought reconsideration of that award. The rescission was ordered because the parties now wish to enter into a Compromise and Release agreement. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeLumbar Spine InjuryKnee InjuryPsyche InjuryWeight GainSleep DisturbanceSexual Dysfunction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,781 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