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. ADJ9220592
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

LINDA MEISEL vs. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kohl's Department Store's Petition for Removal. The Board found that the defendant's claim of due process violation was unpersuasive, as it is well-established that a judge must inquire into the adequacy of Compromise and Release agreements. The Board noted that the defendant had multiple opportunities to address the adequacy issues and that the upcoming trial on adequacy would provide a forum to present arguments. Finally, the Board ordered that the Pre-Trial Conference Statement be served on the applicant.

Compromise and ReleaseAdequacyPrimary Treating PhysicianPetition for RemovalDue ProcessPre-Trial Conference StatementWalk-throughOff CalendarSupplemental ReportReconsideration
References
7
Case No. OAK 0343209
Regular
Jun 20, 2008

SANTIAGO SANTOS vs. GHIRINGHELLI PIZZA, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the order suspending action on a proposed settlement was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the judge's concerns about settlement adequacy and the lack of a certified interpreter for the Spanish-speaking applicant. The case will return to the trial level for further proceedings on the settlement's adequacy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Suspending ActionCompromise and ReleaseAdequacy HearingInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderRemovalCertified InterpreterIndustrial Injury
References
12
Case No. ADJ234762, ADJ2358121, ADJ2518900, ADJ3669155, ADJ684024, ADJ806318, MON 0356645, MON 0356646, MON 0356647, VNO 0479411, VNO 0479412, VNO 0547904
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

DALILA CHOTO vs. LSG SKYCHEFS, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release agreement. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, holding that reconsideration may only be had of final orders, and the prior decision to vacate the agreement for further review of its adequacy was an interlocutory procedural order. The Board also emphasized its inherent authority to review the adequacy of settlement agreements. Additionally, the Board admonished defense counsel for using unprofessional and disrespectful language in the petition.

WCABReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderAdequacy of SettlementMedical LiensElectronic Adjudication Management SystemJudicial Authority
References
10
Case No. ADJ6827349
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

RONALD JOLLIFFE vs. THOMAS HYDRAULIC & HARDWARE SUPPLY, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to rescind the judge's order to correct a settlement agreement and increase Medicare Set Aside funding. The judge had suspended action on the Compromise and Release due to concerns about the settlement's adequacy regarding medical treatment costs and Medicare. The WCAB found that the judge had not yet determined the settlement's adequacy and therefore denied removal, returning the case for trial on that issue and other litigable matters.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideCMS determinationSecond Order Suspending ActionWCJadequacy of settlementtrial levellitigable issuesSocial Security Disability Insurance
References
1
Case No. ADJ6627328
Regular
Aug 16, 2010

MANUEL ALEMAN vs. TOWER CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise & Release (OACR) due to potential procedural issues regarding the timeliness of the applicant's petition and the adequacy of the underlying settlement. The Board found the petition timely filed as service of the OACR was not properly documented. Furthermore, there were significant deficiencies in the medical evidence available to assess the OACR's adequacy, particularly concerning the applicant's claimed injuries to the psyche, neck, back, and neurological system. Consequently, the OACR was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Order Approving Compromise & ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCABWCJDismissal of AttorneyTimelinessService of ProcessAdequacy of Compromise & ReleaseMedical ReportsEAMS
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.B. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff J.B., on behalf of her child K.B., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) for failing to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2014-2015 school year. The Parent sought tuition reimbursement for K.B.'s private school placement at the Rebecca School. Both an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) and a State Review Officer (SRO) ruled against the Parent, affirming the adequacy of DOE's FAPE offer. The U.S. District Court, after reviewing the procedural and substantive adequacy of K.B.'s Individualized Education Program (IEP), denied the Parent's motion for summary judgment and granted the DOE's cross-motion. The Court concluded that the DOE's recommended IEP was reasonably calculated to provide K.B. with a FAPE.

IDEAFAPEIEPSpecial EducationDisability LawAutism Spectrum DisorderTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDue Process ComplaintLeast Restrictive Environment
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lehocky v. Tidel Technologies, Inc.

Lead Plaintiffs Robert Scott Stauffer, Robert Scott Stauffer IRA Trust, and the Jerry Keeler Revocable Trust filed a motion for class certification against Tidel Technologies, Inc. and several individual defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs claim that Tidel and its directors artificially inflated stock prices through misrepresentations regarding the company's financial health, its relationship with its major customer CCC, and by concealing the loss of CCC as its primary supplier. The lawsuit asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, encompassing claims of misrepresentation and insider trading. The Court conducted a class certification hearing and evaluated the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. After considering expert testimony on market efficiency and arguments concerning the representatives' typicality and adequacy, the Court determined that the motion for class certification should be granted.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 10b-5Securities Exchange Act of 1934Insider TradingMarket EfficiencyFraud on the MarketMisrepresentationMaterial OmissionsClass Certification
References
60
Case No. ADJ6824470
Regular
Dec 17, 2009

ALEJANDRO ALVARADO vs. CHAMPION FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The appeals board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding an order that required the defendant to produce evidence to rebut a QME's disability rating. The matter was returned to trial to determine the adequacy of a compromise and release agreement.

Petition for RemovalOgilvie analysisScheduled Permanent Disability RatingDiminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC)Compromise and Release AgreementAdequacy of SettlementBurden of ProofQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Industrial InjuryWCJ Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ10012350
Regular
May 17, 2017

JAIME MEDINA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded its January 13, 2017 Findings and Award in this case. This action was taken because the parties have reached a settlement agreement. The case is now returned to the trial level for the Workers' Compensation Judge to review the adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the previous award may be reinstated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSettlementFindings and AwardRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdequacy of SettlementAdministrative Law JudgePermissibly Self-InsuredStatus Quo Ante
References
0
Case No. ADJ6600912
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

DAVID BUCKELS vs. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, ACE USA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a prior decision. Subsequently, the parties reported a settlement. The Board rescinded the trial judge's prior decision and returned the case to the trial level for the judge to review the adequacy of the Compromise and Release agreement. If the settlement is not approved, the prior decision may be reinstated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWCJRescindedTrial LevelSettlement ApprovalPetition for New Panel QMEGallagher BassettTrader Joe's
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 211 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