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. ADJ4431752 (ANA 0387918) ADJ771024 (ANA 0387917)
Regular
May 14, 2009

CYNTHIA WILSON vs. ALBERTSONS, INC., permissibly self-insured, administered by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior finding of no ratable permanent disability for a left knee injury. The applicant argues the Agreed Medical Evaluator's report may not adequately capture her disability under the new *Almaraz/Guzman* precedent, which allows consideration of factors beyond the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further medical record development. This is to allow the Agreed Medical Evaluator to specifically address whether the AMA Guides adequately describe the applicant's disability and, if not, to outline other relevant factors.

WCABAlbertson's Inc.Specialty Risk ServicesADJ4431752ADJ771024Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrderRatable Permanent DisabilityAlmaraz/Guzman
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finley v. Manhattan Developmental Center

The petitioner, a mental hygiene therapy aide, was dismissed for failing to report client abuse. An arbitrator found the charges proven and upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court vacated the dismissal portion of the arbitration award, deeming the punishment disproportionate and remanding the issue of punishment to the arbitrator for further consideration, without adequately considering the arbitrator's reasoning process. This appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, confirming the original arbitration award and denying the petition to vacate. The court stated that the arbitrator's omission to discuss the petitioner's employment history did not render the decision defective, as there was no evidence that any factors were overlooked that the petitioner had an opportunity to advance. Furthermore, CPLR 7511 (b) does not provide grounds to vacate an arbitration award for the consideration of factors thought to be overlooked.

ArbitrationDismissalEmploymentClient AbuseCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewDue ProcessPunishmentArbitrator Discretion
References
1
Case No. 12 Civ. 8456
Regular Panel Decision

Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Plaintiffs, including Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. and Micah Z. Kellner, challenged the construction of the 91st Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS) in New York City. They alleged that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) improperly issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit by failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consider alternatives, or sufficiently address impacts after Superstorm Sandy. Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed the City of New York and its Department of Sanitation denied them equal protection, and Asphalt Green Inc. alleged breach of contract, trespass, and private nuisance. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, affirming that the Corps’ permit issuance was rational, its environmental review was adequate, and its considerations of alternatives, mitigation, and post-Sandy impacts were sufficient. All of Plaintiffs' claims, including constitutional and state law claims, were dismissed with prejudice.

Environmental LawClean Water Act (CWA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Waste ManagementMarine Transfer StationJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Summary JudgmentFlood RiskSuperstorm Sandy
References
45
Case No. ADJ11149950
Regular
May 14, 2019

FRANCISCA VARELA vs. SMM FACILITIES, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in the case of Varela v. SMM Facilities, Inc. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions, as their due process rights were satisfied by the WCJ's consideration of their arguments against a change of venue. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeChange of VenueDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be Heard
References
2
Case No. ADJ8747731
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

MARIA FRAYRE vs. TOMICH BROTHERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order denying the motion to quash, and returned the case for further proceedings. The lien claimant argued the subpoena sought protected trade secrets and was vague and overbroad. The Board found the WCJ failed to address the trade secret claim adequately, necessitating a return to the trial level for proper consideration of the objections. The Board also noted concerns about the subpoena's breadth and lack of clear relevance to the issues.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumTrade SecretVague and OverbroadLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDiscoveryPrivilege
References
3
Case No. ADJ3417200 (MON 0240201)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

CAROL CHARON vs. RALPHS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision regarding applicant's transfer to the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board found the WCJ erred by relying on a stale deposition of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) that did not adequately address the MPN transfer issue under relevant case law. The Board remanded the case for further development of the record, including a new deposition of the AME and consideration of MPN notice requirements, to allow the WCJ to issue a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)ReconsiderationFindings of FactAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Labor Code Section 4616.2Administrative Director's RulesBabbitt v. Ow JingKnight v. United Parcel ServiceMPN Notice Requirements
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2005

In re Martin E.

This case involves an appeal from an order issued by the Family Court of Clinton County. The order granted the petitioner's request to extend the respondent's placement, who was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in December 2003. The Family Court determined that it was not in the respondent's best interests to return to his mother's custody, citing her inability to provide adequate supervision and the respondent's dangerous behaviors. The appellate court reviewed the Family Court's consideration of relevant documents and testimony, ultimately affirming the decision based on a preponderance of credible evidence.

Juvenile DelinquencyPlacement ExtensionFamily CourtChild WelfareBest Interests of ChildParental SupervisionRisk AssessmentPermanency PlanAppellate ReviewCredibility Determinations
References
3
Case No. ADJ19549540; ADJ16500248
Regular
Oct 22, 2025

MARIA A LEYVA TORRES vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC., PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

Defendant petitioned for removal of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) order that took the matter off calendar, arguing for prior consideration of a post-termination defense. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying removal. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if needed. The decision affirmed the WCJ's discretion in not bifurcating a Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) issue, emphasizing that removal is an extraordinary remedy.

Petition for RemovalOff-Calendar OrderPost-Termination DefenseSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceBifurcationLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
References
10
Case No. ADJ9163494, ADJ9163491
Regular
Dec 28, 2015

RIGOBERTO NORIEGA vs. BEST WESTERN TOWN AND COUNTRY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original decision due to an inadequate medical report from the panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). The PQME's opinion was based on incomplete medical records, including a failure to review records related to the applicant's cancer treatment, and did not adequately address the applicant's claimed injuries or permanent disability according to AMA Guides. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the medical record, including the potential appointment of a regular physician and consideration of a videotape of the injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceCumulative Trauma InjuryIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentMedical Record DevelopmentAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
0
Case No. ADJ823138 (OXN 0142604)
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

CHERYL PEET vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA, Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered By CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is reconsidering a prior decision that found a deputy probation officer sustained industrial injuries resulting in 78% permanent disability. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) opinion, which formed the basis of the award, was ambiguous and unsubstantiated. The Board agrees that the QME's assessment of 60% whole person impairment is not adequately supported by the record, particularly in light of the applicant's own testimony regarding her daily activities. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further evidence development and a new decision, with consideration for cost of living adjustments if a life pension is awarded.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCheryl PeetCounty of VenturaCORVEL CORPORATIONADJ823138OXN 0142604Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationdeputy probation officerindustrial injuryright upper extremity
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,001 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