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

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Claim of Williams v. New York State Department of Transportation

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1988, initially received permanent partial disability benefits at a mild rate in May 1996. Dissatisfied with this assessment, the claimant appealed, presenting medical evidence suggesting a more severe disability. This led the Workers’ Compensation Board to restore the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record concerning the degree of disability post-May 6, 1996. Although two physicians testified, with one indicating a moderate disability and another a total disability, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately awarded benefits at a moderate partial disability rate. Upon the claimant's subsequent appeal, the Board ruled that the claimant was precluded from raising the issue of their degree of disability, citing regulatory provisions. The appellate court found that the Board had abused its discretion, as the issue was explicitly remanded by the Board previously, and the claimant was still aggrieved by the WCLJ's award despite an increase in benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorMedical EvidenceDegree of DisabilityRemittalNew York LawAdministrative Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co.

The defendant, ANI Entertainment, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Cyril Peter, sustained injuries when a ladder he was standing on during renovation work slid from beneath him, causing a fall. The plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case for liability. ANI Entertainment, Inc. failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning the injured plaintiff's conduct as a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentRenovation WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2005

Lijo v. City of New York

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the City of New York and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., dismissing a cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the Labor Law claim and remitting the matter for a new trial. The case involved an injured plaintiff who fell 25 feet from a backhoe bucket while attempting to reattach a fallen electrical wire, an act the court deemed ancillary to his work of reconstructing and repairing sewer pipes for the City of New York. The court found that such ancillary work falls under the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1), contrary to the lower court's determination. Additionally, the court identified triable issues of fact regarding Consolidated Edison's potential liability as an owner, contractor, or agent under the same Labor Law section.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSection 240(1)Sewer RepairElectrical WiresBackhoe AccidentFall from HeightAncillary WorkAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
6
Case No. ADJ6461450
Regular
Apr 23, 2012

ANDREW HADDAD vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BERKLEY SPECIALTY

This case involves a notice of intention to issue sanctions against applicant's attorney, Christopher Ginocchio, and his firm, Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio, under Labor Code section 5813. The sanctions are proposed due to the attorney's alleged bad-faith actions in his answer to the defendant's petition for reconsideration. Specifically, the attorney cited a deposition transcript not in evidence and failed to comply with evidence citation rules. The Board intends to impose a $500 sanction unless good cause is shown within 15 days.

Labor Code section 5813California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10561bad-faith actionsfrivolousunnecessary delaydeposition transcript not in evidenceRule 10842evidentiary statementsspecific references to the recordexhibit number
References
3
Case No. ADJ6788515
Regular
Dec 10, 2015

CIRA ROJAS HERNANDEZ vs. CARLS JR, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to Sanction Applicant's attorneys, Oliver F. Moench and Moses Luna, A Law Corporation. This stems from Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, which was over the page limit and signed by Mr. Moench, who was ineligible to practice law at the time. The WCAB alleges Mr. Moench willfully misrepresented his attorney status and engaged in frivolous conduct, potentially violating Labor Code Section 5813. Sanctions up to $2,500 and payment of defendant's expenses are being considered absent a timely, good-cause objection.

SanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationIneligible AttorneyMinimum Continuing Legal EducationFrivolous ConductBad Faith TacticsWCAB RulesLabor Code Section 5813Misrepresentation of StatusLaw License Suspension
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2012

Ruesch v. Ruesch

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a divorce and ancillary relief action. The Supreme Court found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a stipulation by allowing her paramour to reside in the marital home. The court suspended maintenance payments and imposed a prospective fine. The plaintiff argued for retrospective application of these penalties and an award of an attorney's fee. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive for past acts without proven actual loss. The court also found the denial of attorney's fees to be without merit.

DivorceCivil ContemptMaintenance PaymentsStipulation ViolationProspective FineMarital HomeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRemedial FineAttorney's Fee
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,835 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