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. ADJ367503 (ANA 0407530)
Regular
Jun 27, 2013

MANUEL GONZALEZ AGUINIGA vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order compelling a release for a Social Security number ending in 2221. While acknowledging a significant identity dispute raised by the employer, the Board found no basis to compel this specific record release as irrelevant to the employer's payroll records for the applicant's known Social Security number. The Board suggested the WCJ address the applicant's identity, as it impacts the case's proceedings. The employer had doubts about the applicant's identity, particularly regarding earnings and discrepancies in Social Security numbers.

Petition for RemovalSocial Security ReleaseFifth Amendment RightsIdentity of ApplicantWCJ OrderAgreed Medical EvaluatorPretrial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicant Identity Dispute
References
0
Case No. ADJ10239649
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

, Applicant, vs. , Defendants.

The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed over twenty days after the Order Approving Compromise and Release. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level to determine if the applicant's claims of fraud regarding his employer's identity and insurance coverage constitute good cause to set aside the original settlement order. The applicant alleged he was misled into settling based on false information about his employer's insurance status. The Board acknowledges these allegations, if proven, could justify setting aside the order.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseuntimelyFraudSet Aside OrderJoinderDeclarative JudgmentGood CauseInequitableMistake
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dworkes & Chalek

This case involves an application by a petitioner to stay arbitration against respondent Chalek, stemming from disputes related to a partnership agreement dated July 18, 1961. The partnership agreement includes an arbitration clause for controversies arising out of the contract. The petitioner argued that the disputes were not subject to arbitration due to unambiguous terms, lack of explicit arbitrator permission for interpretation, and the improper inclusion of an agreement without an arbitration clause. The court found the petitioner's contentions without merit, affirming that while the court determines if an arbitrable dispute exists, the interpretation of a broadly agreed-upon arbitration clause is for the arbitrators. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was denied, the petition dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeStay of ArbitrationMotion DeniedArbitrabilityScope of ArbitrationAmerican Arbitration AssociationDispute ResolutionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ2068970 (STK 0167616)
Regular
Aug 20, 2015

Norman McAtee vs. Briggs & Pearson Construction, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the Administrative Director's prior Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was based on plainly erroneous findings of fact. The Board concluded that the IMR wrongly stated there was no documentation of improved function or reduced pain with the applicant's Duragesic patches, citing medical reports and applicant testimony to the contrary. Therefore, the IMR decision was rescinded, the applicant's appeal was granted, and the treatment dispute was remanded for a new IMR.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.6(h)Plainly Erroneous Findings of FactAdministrative DirectorDuragesicOpioid AnalgesicsPermanent DisabilityMedical Treatment
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dalcro Corp. & International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Three applications were submitted to the court regarding an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Employer Dalcro Corp. moved to stay arbitration and to vacate an arbitrator's award, while the Union moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose from an alleged oral modification of wage rates. Dalcro claimed the arbitration agreement was invalid, there was no arbitrable issue, and the National Labor Relations Board had pre-empted jurisdiction. The court denied Dalcro's application for a stay, finding that Dalcro had participated in the arbitration proceedings. However, the court granted Dalcro's application to vacate the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator failed to adjourn the hearing as mandated by Civil Practice Act § 1458 after being served with a motion for a stay. Consequently, the Union's application to confirm the award was denied, and a rehearing before the arbitrator was directed.

Arbitration AgreementCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardArbitration StayVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardDue ProcessJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1995

Smith Barney, Inc. v. Vivian Hause

This case involves an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment concerning an application to stay arbitration. The underlying dispute arose from respondents' investments, which resulted in significant losses and subsequent arbitration claims against the petitioner for unsuitability and misrepresentation. The central legal question addressed by the appellate court was whether the applicability of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's six-year eligibility rule should be determined by the courts or by arbitrators. The appellate court concluded that the broad language of the parties' arbitration agreement, encompassing "any controversy arising out of or relating to any of [respondents’] accounts," superseded a New York choice of law clause's implication for court determination. Consequently, the court reversed the initial judgment, ruling that the arbitrators should decide the eligibility question, and denied the application to stay arbitration.

Arbitration LawNASD ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActFAAArbitrabilityChoice of Law ClauseNew York LawEligibility RuleInvestment DisputesSecurities Arbitration
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1992

A.A. Building Erectors, Inc. v. Local Union 580 of the International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order and judgment from July 16, 1992, which granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union. An appeal from an earlier order dated March 9, 1992, which temporarily stayed arbitration for settlement facilitation, was dismissed as superseded. The court determined that the dispute, involving whether specific work should have been performed by the respondent's union members and consequently whether the employer should contribute to their benefit fund, was a jurisdictional dispute. Such disputes were explicitly excluded from the parties' arbitration agreement, thereby upholding the stay of arbitration.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeLabor UnionStay of ArbitrationContractual ExclusionCollective Bargaining AgreementNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
References
2
Case No. ADJ6933983
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

MARIA CHEVEZ vs. SAP AMERICA, AIG

This case concerns a dispute over further spinal surgery for an applicant with an industrial back injury. The applicant appealed a denial of surgery based on an Independent Medical Review (IMR) decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior finding, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCAB determined that the applicant's appeal of the IMR is permissible regardless of service timeliness and that the Administrative Law Judge must assess if the IMR determination meets statutory standards and constitutes substantial evidence.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewMedical Provider NetworkLabor Code Section 4616.4Petition for ReconsiderationSpinal SurgeryDisc Replacement SurgeryAdministrative Director RulesSubstantial EvidenceTreatment Standards
References
7
Case No. ADJ2145098 (SAL 0113144)
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

JOSE R. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ vs. TANIMURA & ANTLE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the duration of temporary disability benefits awarded to the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. However, the Board granted the defendant's petition, amending the award to end temporary disability benefits on March 26, 2008, when the Agreed Medical Evaluator declared the applicant permanent and stationary, finding insufficient evidence of continued disability thereafter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and StationaryUntimely PetitionLabor Code § 5903Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 15,023 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