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. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ8121226
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

GILBERT CASTILLO vs. EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, FASIS administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to amend a permanent disability indemnity award, claiming a clerical error in the amount calculated within the stipulations. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding no mutual mistake and emphasizing that the Board is not obligated to correct an administrator's error. The Board specifically declined to adopt the judge's recommendation to impose sanctions on the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEast Contra Costa Fire Protection DistrictAthens AdministratorsPermanent Disability IndemnityStipulationsClerical ErrorMutual MistakePetition for ReconsiderationAwardSanctions
References
1
Case No. 02-CV-6146L
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Orr v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Colleen Orr sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability insurance benefits and SSI. This case has a long procedural history, including two previous administrative hearings and a prior remand from the District Court due to errors by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). In the second administrative decision, the ALJ again failed to correct errors, including properly assessing plaintiff's credibility, obesity, alcoholism, and mental limitations. The District Court, presided over by Judge Larimer, found that the Commissioner failed twice to meet the burden of proving other jobs existed for the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversing the Commissioner's final decision and remanding the case solely for the calculation and payment of benefits, denying the Commissioner's request for further administrative proceedings.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeRemandVocational expertMedical expertMental impairmentPhysical impairmentObesityAlcoholism
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosado v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Concepcion Perez Rosado sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability benefits, alleging errors in the administrative hearing. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately develop the medical record, specifically regarding a treating psychologist's incomplete report and a lack of proper inquiry into missing information. The ALJ also incorrectly applied the legal standard for assessing Rosado's mental Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), conflating the "B" criteria for severity with the more detailed RFC assessment required for work-related functions. The court ruled that these failures constituted legal error, depriving Rosado of a full and fair hearing. Consequently, Rosado's motion for judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED, the Commissioner's motion was DENIED, and the case was REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Decision and Order, including further development of the medical record and proper RFC assessment.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)Medical Record DevelopmentTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional Capacity (RFC)Mental ImpairmentDepressionAnxiety
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2000

Farrell v. Child Welfare Administration

Plaintiff Janet Farrell, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Child Welfare Administration (CWA), alleging wrongful termination based on national origin in violation of Title VII and other civil rights statutes. Farrell claimed she was fired from her caseworker position in 1995 after failing a training program and receiving a low exam score. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of national origin discrimination, concluding she was terminated due to her failure to complete requisite training. CWA moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted, dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court allowed Farrell to file an amended complaint by January 20, 2000, to provide more specific factual allegations to support her claims.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINational origin discriminationPro se litigantRule 12(c) motionJudgment on the pleadingsFailure to state a claimMunicipal liabilityCivil Rights ActNew York Executive Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arroyo v. Westlb Administration, Inc.

Ricardo Arroyo, a Hispanic male, sued WestLB Administration, Inc. and West-deutsche Landesbank for racial discrimination and unlawful termination under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention of an employee. Arroyo claimed he was subjected to racial slurs and threats from a coworker, Neil Williamson, over a period of two years, leading to his constructive discharge. The Bank moved for summary judgment. The Court found that the alleged incidents, though offensive, were isolated and sporadic, not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under Title VII. Consequently, the claims for hostile work environment and constructive discharge were dismissed. The claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention were also dismissed as barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentUnlawful TerminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIConstructive DischargeNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent RetentionWorkers' Compensation Law ExclusivityFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
25
Case No. ADJ2867157 (VNO 0476310) ADJ4292086 (VNO 0470201)
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

TERESA VASQUEZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a clerical error in a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order. The Board inadvertently listed January 21, 2011, as the filing and service date for its December 21, 2011, opinion and orders. The correction order clarifies that the correct filing and service date was indeed December 21, 2011. This amendment is a procedural correction of a minor administrative mistake.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical erroropinion and orderspetitions for reconsiderationremovalfiling and service datecorrect file datecorrect service dateADJ2867157VNO 0476310
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1990

Public Administrator v. Trump Village Construction Corp.

The plaintiff's decedent, an employee of subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp., suffered fatal injuries after falling from scaffolding during a renovation project. The court affirmed an order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff Public Administrator regarding the liability of general contractor Charles Construction Corp. under Labor Law § 240 (1). It also affirmed partial summary judgment for property owner Trump Village Construction Corp. and lessee Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. against Charles Construction Corp. for common-law indemnity, finding their liability vicarious. Charles Construction Corp.'s motion for summary judgment against subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp. was denied due to unresolved factual issues regarding comparative fault.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentWorker FallVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnityGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseAppellate Affirmation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,698 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