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
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. ADJ9090412
Regular
Nov 21, 2014

, Applicant, , ABDUR SIKDER vs. , Defendants. LUXOR CAB COMPANY INC.; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the judge's decision for a replacement QME panel. The defendant argued the applicant waived his right to a new panel by not objecting during the examination with Dr. Carpenter. The majority found that removal was not warranted as the defendant did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing the applicant waived his right to object under the relevant rules by failing to do so during the examination.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelChiropracticLabor Code Section 4062.1WCJAdministrative Law JudgeGood CauseUnrepresented EmployeeTimeliness of Objection
References
2
Case No. ADJ9163491; ADJ9163494
Regular
Jan 09, 2015

RIGOBERTO NORIEGA vs. BEST WESTERN TOWN & COUNTRY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal after the WCJ denied his objection to a QME's report. The applicant argued the QME report was untimely and prejudicial because it issued a zero impairment rating. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the applicant waived his objection by not requesting a replacement QME panel until after receiving the unfavorable report. The Board cited precedent preventing parties from waiting to see if a report is favorable before objecting to its timeliness. Commissioner Zalewski dissented, believing the applicant could object after receipt as long as the objection preceded the replacement panel request.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME reportuntimely filingservice of reportreplacement panelobjectionstatutory timeframesLabor CodeAdministrative Director Rule
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iroquois Beverage Corp. v. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America

The case involves an application by Alger A. Williams, J. George E. Constantine, and other employees (referred to as intervenors) to join an existing arbitration proceeding. This arbitration is between Iroquois Beverage Corporation (the employer) and an unnamed union. The union initiated the arbitration to improve the seniority rights of 32 employees, which would negatively impact the intervenors. Both the employer and the union opposed the intervenors' application. The court examined legal precedents regarding individual employee rights in collective bargaining agreements, noting a trend towards recognizing an employee's right to independent representation, especially when the union's interests may conflict with those of certain members. The judge concluded that allowing the intervention would serve justice, particularly given the union's admitted prior collusion with the company regarding seniority in 1949. The court also dismissed the union's objection concerning the lack of a complete list of proposed intervenors as immaterial.

Employee RightsCollective BargainingArbitration InterventionSeniority RightsUnion RepresentationThird-Party BeneficiaryLabor LawJudicial Review of ArbitrationCollusionDue Process
References
17
Case No. ADJ4213258 (VNO 0535826) ADJ1243492 (VNO 0535829)
Regular
May 14, 2009

JEROME HUDSON vs. SK MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, CRUM & FORSTER

This case involves an applicant's petition to rescind an order taking the matter off calendar. The applicant argued the defendant waived their right to a QME evaluation by failing to timely object to the treating physician's report. The Board denied the petition, finding the defendant's objection was likely under Labor Code section 4061, which does not have a strict time frame for objections to permanent disability ratings. Furthermore, the applicant reserved their rights to object to QME reports at trial, and any prejudice could be addressed through reconsideration.

Petition for removalMedical-legal evaluationLabor Code section 4062.2Treating physicianQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Permanent disability ratingLabor Code section 4061Substantial prejudiceIrreparable harmReconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ10061866
Regular
Jun 20, 2016

MARK CRONIN vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding a late Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination valid. The Board ruled that timeframes for IMR issuance are directory, not mandatory, and a late IMR does not invalidate the determination. Therefore, the applicant cannot object to the IMR's timeliness after it has been issued. The Board followed precedent holding that untimeliness of an IMR does not invalidate it, thus an objection on that basis is waived.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewIMRuntimely IMRreconsiderationmedical treatment disputeLabor Code section 4610.6(d)directory timeframesmandatory timeframesutilization review
References
37
Case No. ADJ576200
Regular
Dec 01, 2011

ROBIN DVORKIN vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WORK COMP

This case involves a dispute over the timeliness of an applicant's objection to a utilization review (UR) denial of prescribed medications for an industrial injury. The defendant, County of Sacramento, argued the applicant failed to object within the statutory twenty-day period. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's finding that the applicant's objection was timely. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning and denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Utilization ReviewNon-certificationTreating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerLabor Code section 4062Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ Report and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-Insured
References
0
Case No. ADJ6531287
Regular
Apr 07, 2009

Corey Nakatani vs. Los Alamitos Racetrack, Tristar Management

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order taking the case off calendar for further medical discovery. The applicant argued that the defendant waived objections by not timely objecting to his readiness to proceed and that their subsequent objection lacked good cause. The Board found no substantial prejudice to the applicant from the delay, especially since he had returned to work and had prior relevant cases. Therefore, the petition was denied to allow both parties to adequately develop the record.

Petition for RemovalWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCAB Rule 10416Treating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryPermanent and StationaryMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. ADJ10321614
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

KURT SAALFELD vs. CITY OF TRACY

The Appeals Board denied applicant's Petition for Removal seeking a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. Applicant objected to defendant's letter to the QME via email, but defendant had previously informed applicant they do not accept email service. The Board found applicant's email objection improperly served as there was no agreement for electronic service. Therefore, the Board concluded that applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Rule 10505service by emailobjection to QME letterpeace officer
References
2
Case No. ADJ7395101
Regular
Jan 13, 2016

Phillips Wylly Jr. vs. Omni Hotel, Arch Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the original findings regarding the applicant's right thumb injury, as it was based on an unclear stipulation and the employer's insurer's identity was irrelevant. However, the Board affirmed the denial of the applicant's request to strike the medical report of Dr. Ronald Carlish. This denial was due to the applicant's waiver of objection by not unqualifiedly objecting to the untimely report before reviewing its contents. The Board found that allowing such an objection after seeing an unfavorable opinion would promote doctor shopping and hinder expeditious litigation.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation of CounselIndustrial InjuryPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportReplacement PanelWaiverInvited ErrorUntimely ServiceDoctor Shopping
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 13,941 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