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

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Mario Almaraz vs. Environmental Recovery Services (a.k.a. ENVIROSERVE), State Compensation Insurance Fund Joyce Guzman vs. Milpitas Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Keenan & Associates, Adjusting Agent

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration in two consolidated cases, Almaraz and Guzman, to study the issues raised in a petition and allows for the filing of amicus curiae briefs by any interested person or entity.

WCABReconsiderationAmicus BriefsEn Banc DecisionAMA GuidesPermanent DisabilityThreshold IssueRebuttalFinal OrderInterlocutory Decision
References
18
Case No. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 4964 157576/12
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC

Edward Bradley, an elevator mechanic, died from electrocution while working in a building owned by HWA 1290 III LLC. His estate sued for wrongful death, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations due to unsafe conditions, specifically inadequate lighting and uncovered electrical transformers. The Supreme Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants created the dangerous conditions or had actual or constructive notice of them. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. A dissenting opinion argued that issues of fact existed regarding the lighting, lack of transformer covers, and absence of a required helper.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathElectrocutionElevator AccidentWorkplace SafetyLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Guzman v. Jay

Plaintiff Noel Jackson Guzman filed a Section 1983 action against New York City Police Officer Brian Jay, alleging false arrest and excessive force stemming from a 2009 incident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Guzman, awarding him significant compensatory and punitive damages for false arrest and excessive force. Officer Jay subsequently moved for a new trial, remittitur, and judgment as a matter of law. The court denied motions for a new trial and remittitur, but granted judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest claim due to qualified immunity. This decision was based on the jury's finding that Officer Jay reasonably, though possibly mistakenly, believed Guzman was fighting at the time of arrest.

False ArrestExcessive Force42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityJury VerdictRemittiturNew Trial MotionJudgment as a Matter of LawPolice MisconductPersonal Injury
References
43
Case No. ADJ3311649 (LAO 0871212)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

MILTON JEOVANY LOPEZ vs. LAZAR TRUCK LINES, NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS FOR CTSA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that awarded the applicant 2% permanent disability for a knee injury. The applicant argued the rating was inaccurate based on the AMA Guides and sought recalculation under *Almaraz/Guzman*. The Board found the permanent disability issue was properly raised and that the medical record needed further development. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level to re-evaluate permanent disability consistent with the *Almaraz/Guzman* ruling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilton Jeovany LopezLazar Truck LinesNovapro Risk SolutionsADJ3311649LAO 0871212ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAMA Guides
References
3
Case No. ADJ2786471 (AHM 0131083) ADJ1723308 (AHM 0131186) ADJ1776217 (AHM 0131184)
Regular
Jul 12, 2011

RENE GARCIA vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision regarding applicant Rene Garcia's industrial injury to his low back and knees. The Board found that the treating physician's impairment rating was not substantial evidence because it impermissibly considered the applicant's ability to compete in the open labor market, in addition to Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), deviating from *Almaraz/Guzman* guidelines. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including a supplemental report or deposition from the physician, to clarify the *Almaraz/Guzman* analysis solely on ADLs.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Anaheimfirefightercumulative traumapermanent disability awardapportionmentAMA GuidesAlmaraz v. Environmental Recovery ServicesMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Whole Person Impairment
References
7
Case No. ADJ480092 (SFO 0498380) ADJ2934310 (SFO 0498381)
Regular
Apr 26, 2009

TONI MORGAN vs. REDWOOD CREDIT UNION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation judge's finding that the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) should apply to two cumulative trauma injuries. The applicant argued for the 1997 PDRS, asserting a defendant's termination of temporary disability payments triggered a Labor Code notice requirement. Alternatively, the applicant contended the $15\%$ permanent disability rating was too low, citing *Almaraz/Guzman* regarding disparities between AMA Guides impairment ratings and actual employability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, agreeing the medical record needed further development under *Almaraz/Guzman*, and deferred the permanent disability issue for trial level review. A dissenting opinion argued the applicant waived the AMA Guides impairment issue by not raising it earlier.

WCABRedwood Credit UnionZenith Insurance CompanyUnited States Fire Insurance Co.cumulative traumapermanent disability rating schedule2005 PDRS1997 PDRSLabor Code section 4061Labor Code section 4660
References
11
Case No. ADJ8599111
Regular
May 24, 2018

PAUL CHIN vs. EVEREST COLLEGE, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision grants reconsideration and affirms the applicant's award of 53% permanent disability, with adjustments for benefits paid and attorney fees. The Board rejected the defendant's attempt to challenge the *Almaraz/Guzman III* analysis, finding it was raised too late. The Board also refused to consider the defendant's supplemental pleading. The award is finalized with jurisdiction reserved for any disputes regarding benefit adjustments.

Petition for ReconsiderationAlmaraz/Guzman III analysisPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMEPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAttorney FeeAppeals Board Rule 10848Supplemental PleadingTimely Manner
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Hazemag U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiff Guzman filed a diversity action alleging product liability and negligence for a hand injury sustained at work in December 1988, involving a machine manufactured by defendants Grasan and Hazemag U.S.A., Inc. Prior to this federal suit, Guzman pursued relief through the Workers' Compensation Board, which initially denied his claim but later determined an employer-employee relationship with M & C Transfer Station and Recycling Inc., against whom he also had a pending state court action. Guzman sought to dismiss the federal action without prejudice to consolidate it with the state court case, citing judicial economy. The district court denied the Rule 41(a)(2) motion, reasoning that the Workers' Compensation Board's finding eliminated the judicial economy justification, as New York Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6) would likely provide a complete defense in the state civil action.

Voluntary DismissalRule 41(a)(2) F.R.C.P.Judicial EconomyDiversity JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawProduct LiabilityNegligence ClaimFederal Court ProcedureState Court ActionEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 265 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