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. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426)
Significant
Apr 14, 2009

Lawrence Weiner, Applicant vs Ralphs Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, allows the submission of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional issues arising from the legislative repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, which pertains to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

VRMALabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationrepealstatutory rightvested rightsghost statutessavings clauseen bancamicus briefs
References
18
Case No. ADJ347040
En Banc
Apr 14, 2009

LAWRENCE WEINER vs. RALPHS COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the legal issues presented by the defendant's petition, specifically concerning the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, and has ordered the allowance of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional questions.

Amicus briefsEn banc decisionVocational rehabilitationVRMARepeal of statuteLabor Code section 139.5JurisdictionRetroactive benefitsFindings and AwardWCJ
References
18
Case No. ADJ1177048
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant to allow for a more thorough study of the issues raised and to permit the filing of amicus curiae briefs by interested parties.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 ScheduleReconsiderationAmicus Curiae BriefsThreshold IssueFinal OrderEn Banc DecisionRebuttalPermanent Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 5900
References
16
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. ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779)
En Banc
Apr 06, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board grants petitions for reconsideration from both the applicant and the defendant to further study the issues raised regarding the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) and allows for the submission of amicus curiae briefs.

DFEC2005 Schedulediminished future earning capacityrebutting DFECthreshold issuereconsiderationen banc decisionamicus curiae briefjudicial noticelegislative history
References
19
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
En Banc
Apr 06, 2009

MARIO ALMARAZ, JOYCE GUZMAN vs. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration in two consolidated cases to address the rebuttal of the AMA Guides in the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities and permitted the filing of amicus briefs to aid in its deliberations.

Amicus briefsReconsiderationEn banc decisionThreshold issueAMA GuidesPermanent disabilityRebuttalFinal orderInterlocutory orderLegislative history
References
17
Case No. 01-14-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Kosoco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) filed this supplemental brief in response to Kosoco, Inc.'s reply brief. METRO argues that Kosoco's contention regarding material and substantial impairment of access during construction was waived, as it was not raised in their initial brief and lacked sufficient legal or evidentiary support. METRO asserts that any inconveniences during construction were normal and did not constitute a material and substantial impairment of access, nor is a decrease in business profitability relevant to a takings claim. The brief cites several Texas cases and rules of appellate procedure to support its arguments. METRO requests that the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court's order dismissing Kosoco's takings claim.

Appellate BriefWaiver of ArgumentTakings ClaimImpairment of AccessConstruction ImpactsEvidentiary SupportLegal PrecedentSummary JudgmentTrial Court OrderAffirmation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hroncich v. Edison

The City of New York filed a motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae and for leave to appear amicus curiae on an appeal. The court granted both motions, accepting the proposed brief as filed. For the appearance amicus curiae, the leave was granted only to the extent that the proposed brief was accepted. The City is required to serve two copies and file nineteen copies of the brief within seven days. Chief Judge Lippman did not participate in this decision.

Amicus CuriaeMotion PracticeLeave to AppealBrief FilingProcedural OrderCourt of AppealsNew York Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Zamora v. New York Neurologic Associates

The Injured Workers Bar Association filed a motion seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in an appeal. The court granted the motion, accepting the proposed brief for filing. The order specifies that two copies of the brief must be served and nineteen copies filed within seven days.

amicus curiaemotionbrief filingappellate procedurelegal association
References
0
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Showing 1-10 of 389 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