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. ADJ9307293
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

JUAN GARCIA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. The lien claimant sought penalties, alleging bad faith because the defendant sent an award payment directly to the lien claimant instead of its hearing representative. The Board found no evidence of unreasonable delay, noting the payment was timely sent to the address on file and promptly cashed by the lien claimant, constituting substantial compliance. The Board also suggested the lien claimant's multiple claims and penalty requests, despite timely payment, could constitute bad faith.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationBad Faith ActionsHearing RepresentativeSubstantial ComplianceSanctionsLabor Code Section 5700Legal Services BureauCCPOA Benefit Trust Fund
References
2
Case No. ADJ7421461
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

Bryan Cruz vs. KLLM TRANSPORTATION, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a dismissal order for failure to prosecute, finding that the applicant's attorneys' petition lacked merit and potentially constituted bad-faith tactics. The Board is issuing a notice of intent to sanction applicant's attorneys, jointly and severally, for up to $1,500 for frivolous actions and tactics, specifically noting a pattern of similar filings. The Board also noted the applicant's attorneys consented to the dismissal at a hearing where the applicant did not appear, and the petition for reconsideration failed to address these critical points. Sanctions are intended to address violations of rules regarding frivolous filings and willful non-compliance.

Petition for ReconsiderationRule 10582Failure to ProsecuteSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Rule 10561Bad Faith ActionsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond D Construction Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Public Works

This decision addresses Diamond D Construction Corp.'s motion for reconsideration, challenging the court's prior denial of a preliminary injunction. The court re-evaluates its stance on Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that Diamond D's claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Department of Labor's enforcement actions is not barred, distinguishing previous cases like Tekkno and Yorktown. While affirming the applicability of the Younger abstention doctrine, the court acknowledges that a 'narrow' exception for bad faith or harassment by the DOL might apply. To resolve factual disputes regarding whether the DOL acted in bad faith or violated Diamond D's substantive due process rights, the court grants the motion for reconsideration in part and orders evidentiary hearings.

Federal CourtEleventh AmendmentYounger AbstentionDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessMotion for ReconsiderationPreliminary InjunctionState SovereigntyEvidentiary Hearing
References
17
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 32441[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-Insurance

This dissenting opinion addresses the affirmation of a judgment that granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The dissent argues that a genuine triable issue of fact exists regarding whether a portion of a substantial settlement between United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) and Western MacArthur was attributable to bad faith claims, which are purportedly not covered by the defendants' reinsurance treaty. The dissenting judge contends that the treaty's plain language excludes such extra-contractual liabilities and that the majority incorrectly applied the 'follow the fortunes' clause. Furthermore, the dissent cites findings from bankruptcy court and evidence from the underlying Western MacArthur v USF&G coverage litigation, both suggesting that bad faith damages were indeed part of the settlement. Therefore, the dissenting justice advocates for denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacating the judgment.

ReinsuranceBad Faith ClaimsSettlement AgreementSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationDissenting OpinionExtra-Contractual LiabilityFollow the Fortunes ClauseBankruptcy Court FindingsCoverage Litigation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States ex rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

Relator Daniel Kirk alleges Schindler Elevator Corp. violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by submitting false VETS-100 reports, concealing non-compliance with the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). The case has a complex procedural history, including appeals to the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, which narrowed Kirk's claims. The current order addresses Schindler's renewed motion to dismiss and Kirk's motion to file a second amended complaint (SAC). The court grants Kirk's motion to amend, finding no bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice, and that the proposed amendments are not futile, specifically addressing timeliness, primary jurisdiction, collateral estoppel, plausibility, and Rule 9(b) particularity requirements. Consequently, Schindler's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is dismissed as moot, and discovery is lifted.

False Claims ActQui Tam RelatorVEVRAA ComplianceVETS-100 ReportsMotion to AmendMotion to DismissRule 9(b) PleadingRelation Back DoctrinePrimary JurisdictionCollateral Estoppel
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills

The case concerns a dissenting opinion regarding a request by petitioners to the Department of Education for the business addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians in Schenectady County. The Department maintains a database of nearly 800,000 licensed professionals but does not differentiate between residential and business addresses. While the majority concluded that disclosing business addresses would not violate personal privacy, the dissenting judge, Malone Jr., argues that disclosing residential addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, emphasizing a heightened privacy concern for home addresses. The dissent criticizes the majority's reliance on an advisory opinion and proposes that affected licensees should be given notice and an opportunity to intervene to protect their privacy rights. The final order reversed the prior judgment and granted the petition, allowing the disclosure of addresses.

Licensing InformationProfessional ConductPrivacy RightsPublic RecordsFreedom of Information LawResidential AddressesBusiness AddressesVeterinariansVeterinary TechniciansSchenectady County
References
10
Case No. ADJ221559 (SBR 0338900) ADJ4409933 (SBR 0338901)
Regular
Oct 12, 2012

CASEY HOWELL vs. BADGER EXPRESS, UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY/AIMS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely filed. However, the Appeals Board granted removal on its own motion to address serious allegations by the defendant concerning the lien claimant's attorney's alleged bad faith tactics. These allegations include witness tampering and misrepresentations to the court, which undermine the judicial process. The matter is remanded to the WCJ for further proceedings and a decision solely on the defendant's request for sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeRemovalAttorney's FeesSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith Actions
References
3
Case No. ADJ2942075
Regular
Jul 30, 2010

GREGORY REES vs. CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the underlying order denying the PQME disqualification was procedural, not final. On its own motion, the Board granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition. The Board found the defendant's counsel acted in bad faith and frivolously by asserting ex parte communication violations where none existed under Labor Code section 4062.3(h), and thus intends to sanction counsel.

PQME disqualificationex parte communicationLabor Code section 5813frivolous bad faithAppeals Board Rule 10561removal on board motionfinal orderinterlocutory orderssignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,848 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