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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2013

In re the Adoption of a Child Whose First Name is G.

This case addresses whether two close personal friends, KAL and LEL, who are not married or in a romantic relationship but co-parent a child, G., can be her joint legal adoptive parents. KAL initially adopted G. from Ethiopia, and LEL, who jointly planned the adoption and functions as G.'s father, petitioned to become her second legal parent with KAL's consent. The court interpreted "intimate partners" in Domestic Relations Law § 110 broadly, considering legislative intent to expand adoption eligibility and the child's best interests, finding that the shared and intentional parenting relationship between KAL and LEL qualifies as intimate. The decision also affirmed that LEL could adopt as an "adult unmarried person" and that KAL's parental rights would not be terminated under Domestic Relations Law § 117. Ultimately, the court found it was in G.'s best interests to have both KAL and LEL as legal parents, ensuring her security and access to full benefits.

Second-Parent AdoptionUnmarried Partners AdoptionIntimate PartnersNon-Traditional Family StructureCo-ParentingChild's Best InterestsDomestic Relations LawStatutory InterpretationParental RightsAdoption Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. ADJ1914194 (SFO 0468596)
Regular
Nov 10, 2011

RAFAEL TAPIA vs. MEDIA NEWS GROUP, INC./ANG dba THE ARGUS NEWSPAPER, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Rafael Tapia's Petition for Reconsideration, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in denying reconsideration. Additionally, the applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as untimely. Therefore, both the Petition for Reconsideration and the Petition for Removal have been resolved against the applicant.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovaluntimelyWCJ reportDENIEDDISMISSEDMEDIA NEWS GROUPLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYADJ1914194
References
0
Case No. ADJ8209954
Regular
Jul 10, 2013

JOHN NAVROTH II vs. MERVYN'S STORES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by the applicant, John Navroth II. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, adopting the administrative law judge's report and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLab. CodeRymer v. HaglerKaiser Foundation Hospitals
References
10
Case No. ADJ8158024
Regular
Nov 10, 2015

JOSE ESCOBAR vs. CARDINAL HEALTH; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Cardinal Health and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the underlying decision was an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated, nor was it shown that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The Board adopted the WCJ's report for its reasoning in dismissing and denying the petitions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ3442701, ADJ1527396
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

STEVE FARACI vs. RIVERTON STEEL, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, SEDGWICK, CMS, AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration and denied a Petition for Removal. The Board found that the petition sought reconsideration of an interlocutory order, which is not a final decision subject to review. Additionally, the petition for removal was denied as untimely and for failure to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report, concluding that the order joining a party defendant was procedural and not a final determination of rights or liabilities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
7
Case No. ADJ9793567
Regular
Aug 19, 2015

ROSA CAMACHO vs. RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Rosa Camacho's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied her petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal were denied. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, which detailed why the issues raised were not final determinations of substantive rights or threshold matters. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and the petition for removal was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ9724977
Regular
Mar 17, 2017

STACEE BARBATO vs. FRESNO HEART SURGICAL HOSPITAL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both Stacee Barbato's petition for reconsideration and petition for removal. The Board found the underlying decision was not "final" as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, even if treated as a removal petition, it was dismissed as untimely, having been filed after the statutory deadline. The Board adopted the judge's report and would have denied the petition on the merits if it had been timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionTimeliness
References
4
Case No. ADJ9551175
Regular
May 12, 2016

MANUEL ARZATE vs. WEST PICO FOODS, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal and denied their Petition for Reconsideration. The defendant sought to overturn an award of temporary disability indemnity, alleging a mutual mistake of fact regarding potential EDD reimbursement. The Board found the defendant improperly filed a Petition for Removal and treated it as a Petition for Reconsideration. They denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning, and noted that any EDD lien issue could be addressed in future proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStipulation Award and OrderPetition for RemovalPetition for Reconsiderationtemporary disability indemnitymutual mistake of factEmployment Development DepartmentEDDreimbursementfinal order
References
0
Case No. ADJ7580924 (MF), ADJ4184729 (SJO 0177821), ADJ1127103 (SJO 0179965), ADJ605452 (SJO 0166061)
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

IBRAHIM HAMAMJY vs. ENTEGRIS, INC.; SENTRY INSURANCE, ATCOR CALIFORNIA, INC.; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration and denied Petitions for Removal filed by Entegris/Sentry Insurance and Atcor/Golden Eagle Insurance. The Board found that the August 29, 2011 Order consolidating three cases and taking them off calendar for further discovery was interlocutory, not a final order. Therefore, the reconsideration petition was improper. Removal petitions were denied as the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the consolidation and discovery order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEntegrisInc.Sentry InsuranceGolden Eagle Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJconsolidationinterlocutory order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 14,593 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