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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100

New York State United Teachers' motion to file an amicus curiae brief on the appeal has been granted. The proposed brief has been accepted for filing. The brief must be served in three copies and an original and 24 copies must be filed within seven days.

Amicus CuriaeMotion GrantedBrief FilingAppealTeachers Union
References
0
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 145 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