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. BAK 145900; BAK 146234 BAK 146235
Regular
Sep 26, 2007

AMALIA DIAZ vs. MCDONALDS/GAVINO MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTEE COMPANY, LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The applicant sustained an industrial knee injury and was awarded continuing temporary disability (TDI) based on an amputation exception. Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing knee surgery is not an amputation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to apply the recent en banc decision in *Cruz*, which clarified that "amputation" refers to severance of external body parts. The prior award was rescinded and the matter remanded for a new decision consistent with *Cruz*.

Labor Code section 4656subdivision (c)(2)(C)amputation exceptiontotal knee arthroplastytemporary disability indemnitypermanent and stationaryreconsiderationen banc decisionCruz v. Mercedes Benz of San Franciscorescinded
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldaro v. Float No. 187

The libelant, employed as a stowman on Float No. 187, was injured due to the vessel's unseaworthy condition and subsequently filed a libel. This action follows a previous case where the libelant sued his employer, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for the same injuries. In that prior action, the complaint was dismissed, with Judge J. Edward Lumbard ruling that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. Citing a similar precedent, the court in the present case sustained the respondent's exceptions to the libel, leading to its dismissal.

Seaman InjuryUnseaworthinessLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdmiralty LawMaritime LawLibelExceptionsCase DismissalFederal District Court
References
4
Case No. SRO 0132150
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

DAVID BLOOMQUIST vs. SIRI GRADING & PAVING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's argument that temporary disability payments exceeded the statutory 104-week limit. The Board clarified that the applicant's shoulder surgery did not constitute an "amputation" as defined by Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C), which is an exception to the limit. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level to determine the exact date temporary disability payments first commenced, as this is crucial for calculating the applicable 104-week cap.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardcumulative traumatemporary disability indemnitydate of commencementLabor Code section 4656(c)amputationtwo-year/104-week capseverancelimb
References
2
Case No. ADJ10035615
Regular
Feb 15, 2018

RALPH MARTINEZ vs. PARCO, INC. (psi), CLAIMQUEST (tpa)

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who suffered a burn injury to his left hand. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's award, arguing the 104-week limit on temporary disability benefits applied and that the permanent disability rating was incorrect. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that exceptions to the 104-week limit due to amputation or severe burns applied. The Board also found that the WCJ's permanent disability rating was appropriate, treating the Qualified Medical Examiner's discrepancy as a clerical error.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code $\S 4656$Permanent Partial DisabilityQualified Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesAmputationSevere Burns
References
2
Case No. ADJ8970618
Regular
Jun 27, 2017

DANIEL GUERRERO vs. RAMCAST STEEL FABRICATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify an industrial injury finding. The Board affirmed a judge's award of $79\%$ permanent disability for an applicant who lost fingers in a punch press. The judge correctly determined the applicant's psychiatric injury qualified for compensation under the "violent act" exception to Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(1), finding the severe amputation constituted such an event. The Board amended the award to explicitly state the applicant sustained a psyche injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment.

Labor Code section 4660.1violent act exceptionpsychiatric disorderphysical injurysudden and extraordinarycatastrophic injurypanel opinionsciteable authorityadministrative constructionPOST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moreno v. United States

Plaintiff Julio Moreno sued the United States of America and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) for personal injuries sustained from a fall in a USMS-seized apartment building. Moreno claimed he tripped over a defective floor drain cover, leading to severe injuries, including paralysis and amputation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the USMS was not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The court found that P & L Management and Consulting, Inc., an independent contractor, was responsible for the building's maintenance, not the USMS, thereby insulating the government from liability under the independent contractor defense. Additionally, the court rejected Moreno's claims based on New York's non-delegable duty law, stating it would impose strict liability inconsistent with the FTCA. The court also determined that the USMS's decisions to hire a contractor and supervise its performance were discretionary functions protected by the FTCA's exception. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Personal InjuryFederal Tort Claims ActIndependent ContractorSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDiscretionary Function ExceptionPremises LiabilityBuilding ManagementFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
20
Case No. 533860
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Quinton Waters

Quinton Waters, a station agent, was injured in a bicycle accident while traveling to an overtime assignment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially deemed the claim compensable under the 'special errand' exception. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and did not fall under the 'outside employee' exception. The Appellate Division found that the Board failed to address the 'special errand' exception, which was the WCLJ's original basis for awarding benefits. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the special errand exception.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionOutside Employee ExceptionScope of EmploymentTravel to Work InjuryOvertime AssignmentBicycle AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryBoard ReversalAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 800 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