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. ADJ7131370
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

CAROLYN BRANTLEY vs. CHARLES WALKER dba JUST IN TIME, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge, who found the petition was filed 34 days after the applicant's actual receipt of the order approving settlement. Under California Workers' Compensation rules, the petition was required to be filed within 20 days of actual notice.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessOrder approving settlementLienWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportActual receiptDismissedUntimely-filed
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. NBC/GE

The plaintiff, a black female, filed a Title VII action alleging race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment during her employment with NBC. This claim arose from the alleged placement of sexually explicit postcards and management's inadequate response. Defendants, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. and General Electric Company, moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff failed to commence the action within 90 days of receiving her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. The court, after considering factual submissions from both parties regarding the letter's receipt date, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed concerning the actual date of receipt by plaintiff's counsel.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIIRight-to-Sue LetterEEOCSummary Judgment MotionTimeliness of Complaint
References
32
Case No. ADJ1703796
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

Diane Minish vs. Hanuman Fellowship, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Applicant Diane Minish sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a WCJ on January 22, 2021, which found she did not rebut the presumption of receiving an Order Dismissing her case. Minish contended she was not served with the Order Dismissing and that due process requires actual notice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the record and concluded that Minish successfully rebutted the presumption of receipt, giving great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations regarding her testimony of non-receipt. The WCAB found that the failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard violated due process and constituted good cause to set aside the Order Dismissing. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the original F&O, granted Minish's Petition to Vacate, and rescinded the Order Dismissing her case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationNotice of IntentionOrder DismissingPresumption of ReceiptRebuttedGood CausePetition to VacateDue ProcessSubstantial Justice
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Schulz

Judge Rosenblatt dissents in part from the Court's decision upholding the denial of a defendant's CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion without a hearing. The dissent argues for a hearing due to the high possibility of the defendant's actual innocence. Key evidence includes the primary victim, Ruiz, submitting a post-trial affidavit stating she is 90% certain the robber was another individual, Guilfoyle, whose photograph was disallowed at trial. The dissent highlights the temporal and geographical proximity, and similar modus operandi of Guilfoyle's other crimes, contrasting with the majority's view of 'remoteness'. Rosenblatt asserts that Ruiz's affidavit, especially following a 'borderline ruling' on the photograph, is too significant to dismiss summarily, and a hearing could provide an 'additional measure of truth' and serve the 'higher ends of justice'.

Criminal LawPost-Conviction ReliefActual InnocenceCPL 440.10 MotionWitness IdentificationEvidentiary RulingDissenting OpinionModus OperandiAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. VNO 449913 VNO 449916 VNO 459604
Regular
Apr 08, 2008

EULALIO BERNAL vs. RSC INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed lien claimant Dr. Tepper's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 20 days after the order disallowing the lien was served, a jurisdictional deadline. Even considering the lien claimant's claimed date of actual receipt, the petition remained untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEulalio BernalRSC International IncorporatedGil Tepper M.D.Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Disallowing LienNotice of Intention to Disallow LienUntimely PetitionLabor Code Section 5903
References
6
Case No. AHM 0138702
Regular
Mar 17, 2008

EMMA J. HAMILTON vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Emma J. Hamilton's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late. Although the WCAB made an error in the applicant's address, service was properly made on her attorney. Even with the actual receipt date, the petition was filed 29 days after the applicant received the decision, exceeding the statutory deadline.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAOE/COEIndustrial InjuryTimelinessOfficial Address RecordService of ProcessJurisdictionAdministrative Law Judge
References
6
Case No. ADJ6763029
Regular
Dec 11, 2018

MARTIN RODRIGUEZ vs. VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPING, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Martin Rodriguez's Petition for Removal as untimely. The petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's July 28, 2015 decision, exceeding the allowed filing period. Timeliness requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Had it been timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDismissedWCAB Rule 10843(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)WCJ's reportService by mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ7785859
Regular
Nov 18, 2015

RAY ANTHONY vs. VALERO/CERTIFIED SAFETY SPECIALISTS, LLC, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the fact that the petition was filed **untimely**, exceeding the statutory 25-day deadline for such filings. The Board emphasized that timely filing means actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Because the petition was jurisdictional late, the Board lacked the authority to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesAdministrative Law JudgeDismissal OrderService by MailProof of FilingAppeals Board AuthorityMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,078 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