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

Kessel v. Public Service Commission

This case involves an appeal challenging a rate increase granted to the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) by the Public Service Commission. LILCO had requested the increase due to severe financial difficulties and the anticipated non-operation of its Shoreham nuclear plant, leading to a "Financial Stability Adjustment" (FSA) to improve cash flow without increasing income. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that the Commission failed to exercise proper discretion, did not adequately consider ratepayers' interests, and improperly shifted the burden of proof. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that it had appropriately balanced the interests of consumers and investors to preserve LILCO's financial integrity and ensure reliable service. The court also dismissed allegations regarding the burden of proof and judicial bias, concluding that the Commission's determinations were rational and supported by the record.

Rate IncreasePublic Service CommissionLong Island Lighting Company (LILCO)Financial Stability Adjustment (FSA)Utility RegulationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUtility RatesShoreham Nuclear PlantBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. ADJ361974
Regular
Feb 11, 2013

ANA VELASQUEZ vs. AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a $1,000 sanction against applicant's attorney, Peter T. Brown, and his firm. The original sanction was for violating rules regarding supervision of non-attorney employees and requiring specific written authorization for settlement documents. The WCAB found Brown's conduct, including alleged misrepresentations and failure to adequately supervise his employee's submission of a compromise and release without full disclosure, warranted an increased sanction. The WCAB is now considering imposing a sanction of up to $2,500 and has given Brown an opportunity to show cause why this increase is not warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCompromise and ReleaseSupervisionWritten AuthorizationCumulative TraumaGood Faith Negotiation
References
0
Case No. ADJ6610233
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

WILLIAM WILLIAMS (Deceased) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns a deceased correctional officer whose dependent sons were awarded death benefits. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order requiring an offset for a CalPERS special death benefit received by the decedent's widow, deeming it consistent with precedent and statutory intent. The Board also issued a notice of intention to disallow the applicant's attorney's requested fee increase due to non-compliance with a rule regarding notice to the client of adverse interests. Compliance with this rule is required for the fee increase to be considered by the trial judge.

CalPERSspecial death benefitoffsetdeath benefitsdependent childrenattorney's feesWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counselPetiton for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. SRO 0120101, SRO 0120100
Regular
Mar 28, 2008

CYNTHIA L. RICH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SONOMA DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over how to calculate temporary disability indemnity for an injured worker. The employer argues that indemnity should be based on the applicant's wages at the time of injury, while the applicant seeks a higher rate based on her earning capacity and anticipated future wage increases. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that a strict application of the wage at the time of injury may not be reasonable given the applicant's employment history and potential for future raises. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine earning capacity based on reasonably anticipated cost of living adjustments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersTemporary Disability IndemnityEarning CapacityAverage Weekly EarningsDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 4453(d)Permanent DisabilityMedical Treatment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waldstreicher v. Michaelian

This is an Article 78 proceeding initiated by social workers in Westchester County seeking a salary increase as per Social Welfare Law § 79-a for those with suitable graduate training. The county interposed several affirmative defenses, including claims of unconstitutionality, infringement on home rule, and the existence of an alternative incentive plan. The court rejected the county's arguments, affirming the Legislature's power to amend the Civil Service Law and ruling that the matter was of state concern, thus not violating home rule. It also determined that the State Department of Social Welfare's failure to promulgate regulations did not deny qualified persons their benefits, and that local department approval of graduate training was appropriate. The court found the county's purported alternative plan to be invalid due to a lack of state approval. Ultimately, the court granted relief to employees who have completed the necessary graduate training, with a provision for further hearing if individual eligibility issues arise.

Article 78 ProceedingSalary IncreaseSocial Welfare LawCivil Service LawHome RuleGraduate TrainingPublic EmployeesStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawWestchester County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Case No. ADJ3681337 (VNO 0191233)
Regular
Aug 11, 2015

MARK SAVOIE vs. NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a worker injured in 1985 who claims his temporary total disability (TTD) rate should be based on significantly higher earnings from 2004, not his 1985 income. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a tangible, reasonably expected wage increase at the time of the 1985 injury. Furthermore, the Board upheld the employer's right to credit from a prior third-party settlement, finding no waiver or laches despite the long delay. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, emphasizing that post-injury earnings require specific, demonstrable proof of anticipation at the time of injury to adjust TTD calculations.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderGrade 3C open crush injurychronic pain syndrometemporary total disabilityearning capacityHoffmeisterstatutory increaseslaches
References
3
Case No. ADJ8693536
Regular
Dec 28, 2017

MARQUITA DONES vs. WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Marquita Dones' petition for reconsideration regarding an increase in permanent disability benefits. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found no objective medical evidence supported an increase in disability beyond the original 7% award. While applicant testified to increased pain, neither the Qualified Medical Evaluator nor the treating physician could establish an increase in impairment, as required by the AMA Guides. The Board also admonished applicant's attorney for filing a non-compliant document.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedPermanent DisabilityCumulative InjuryLeft ElbowLeft WristAwardPetition to ReopenNew and Further Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ1653540 (SRO 0127586) ADJ1770635 (SRO 0127587)
Regular
Feb 08, 2011

RAUL VILLAPANDO vs. MENDOCINO FOREST PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's challenge to an administrative law judge's (WCJ) attorney's fee award. The WCJ previously increased the applicant's permanent disability rating and awarded the attorney a fee based on the present value of potential future cost-of-living increases to the applicant's life pension, using a speculative 4.7% annual increase. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken because the issue of basing attorney's fees on future Labor Code section 4659(c) increases, and their calculation, was never properly litigated or discussed by the parties. The applicant's attorney bears the burden of proof on this issue at the new hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeesLife PensionLabor Code Section 4659(c)Cost of Living AdjustmentState Average Weekly WageStipulated Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haney v. Schiavone Construction

Claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1980 and was later classified as permanently totally disabled, requiring home care services provided by his spouse. Initially, home care payments were set at $525 per week. In 1989, claimant sought and was granted an increase to $1,000 per week, retroactive to January 1, 1989, based on prevailing nursing rates. The employer and carrier appealed this increase, arguing the Workers' Compensation Law did not permit such increases for spousal care and that the Board lacked authority to modify the initial valuation. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the increase. This court further affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law makes employers liable for necessary home care, including spousal services, and that the Board has continuing jurisdiction to modify awards and properly used prevailing health cost data to determine reasonable value.

Workers' CompensationHome Care ServicesSpousal CarePermanent Total DisabilityIncreased PaymentsPrevailing RateContinuing JurisdictionBoard AuthorityMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 809 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