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. ADJ8967361
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

FELIPE GARCIA (DECEASED) GUILLERMINA GARCIA (WIDOW) vs. SALVADOR GAYTAN dba G\&P AG MANAGEMENT CONTRACTORS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE, Adjusted by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

This case involved a petition for reconsideration by the applicant in a workers' compensation matter where the deceased worker, Felipe Garcia, was initially found to be an employee but later deemed an independent contractor by the Appeals Board. The applicant argued the Board erred by disregarding the WCJ's credibility assessment and by not applying Labor Code section 2750.5 to unlicensed contractors. The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence the deceased worker was engaged in activities requiring a contractor's license under Business and Professions Code sections 7000 and 7026. Therefore, Labor Code section 2750.5 was inapplicable, and the prior decision finding the applicant an independent contractor was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent contractorEmployee statusReconsiderationLabor Code section 2750.5Contractors' State License LawBlew v. HornerGarza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Rinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Unlicensed contractor
References
4
Case No. ADJ9351964 ADJ9351965
Regular
Mar 15, 2016

ROGELIO CORNEJO vs. YOUNIQUE CAFÉ, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior en banc decision. The prior decision held that Chapter 20 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code did not apply to a copy service lien claimant acting as an agent or independent contractor for a lawyer. Consequently, proof of registration and bonding under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455 was deemed unnecessary in such circumstances. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYounique CaféZenith Insurance CompanyWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Rogelio CornejoPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancChapter 20Business and Professions Code
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. ADJ8387626
Regular
Oct 29, 2015

ANA DIAZ vs. SAMBRAILO PACKAGING, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim for photocopying services provided by California Imaging Solutions (CIS). The WCJ initially disallowed the lien because CIS was not registered as a professional photocopier, as required by Business and Professions Code section 22450. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that CIS was exempt from this registration requirement under Business and Professions Code section 22451(b) because it acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney. The case is returned to the trial level to address record deficiencies and re-evaluate the lien claim's compensability in light of this exemption.

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings And OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJProfessional PhotocopierBusiness and Professions Code Section 22450Business and Professions Code Section 22451(b)State BarAgent
References
3
Case No. ADJ8997883
Regular
Jan 04, 2016

PEDRO ALAVEZ vs. SAK'S TERIYAKI, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim by Western Imaging Services, Inc. (WIS) for copying services provided to applicant's attorney. The WCJ initially disallowed the lien, finding WIS failed to prove it was an independent contractor exempt from Business and Professions Code section 22450. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, holding that WIS made a prima facie showing of exemption under Business and Professions Code section 22451(b) by acting as an agent or independent contractor for a State Bar member. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for a new decision on the lien claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Business and Professions Code section 22451independent contractoragentState Barlien claimantreconsiderationPrima facie showing
References
1
Case No. ADJ8313132
Regular
2015-05-00

Ana Garcia vs. Exemplar Enterprise, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

This case involves a lien claim by Preferred Scan, Inc. (PSI) for photocopying services provided to the applicant's attorney. The initial ruling disallowed PSI's lien, finding it failed to meet registration and bonding requirements for professional photocopiers under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed this decision, holding that PSI was exempt as an independent contractor of a member of the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 22451(b). The WCAB found sufficient evidence that PSI acted as an agent or independent contractor for the attorney, thus making registration and bonding unnecessary. The case was returned to the trial level to determine the amount due on PSI's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent ContractorBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451Registration RequirementsBonding RequirementsMember of the State Bar
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Nusio v. Legend Autorama, Ltd.

Donald J. Nusio, an injured plaintiff, and his wife sued Legend Autorama, Ltd. for personal injuries sustained while fixing a garage door on the defendant's premises. The plaintiff fell from a slipping ladder, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, then upon reargument, adhered to its denial for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence but granted it for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Crucially, it reversed the lower court's decision on the cross-appeal, thereby adhering to the original denial of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Ultimately, the Appellate Division determined that triable issues of fact existed for all alleged causes of action, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Dangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyGarage Door Repair
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06264
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Matter of Plumbers Local Union No. 1 v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court decision dismissing a petition filed by Plumbers Local Union No. 1 and its business manager. The Union sought mandamus and declaratory relief to compel the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) to enforce gas, plumbing, and welding worker qualifications. The court found that the Union lacked standing, failing to demonstrate special damages different from the general community or a sufficient nexus to qualify for the public interest exception in mandamus proceedings. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the Union's arguments were unavailing.

StandingMandamusDeclaratory ReliefPublic Interest ExceptionGas Safety RegulationsPlumbing QualificationsWeldersAdministrative CodeFuel Gas CodeNew York City Department of Buildings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,938 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