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. ADJ1940742 (SRO 0119298) ADJ4521061 (SRO 0119299)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

ROSE SCARBERRY vs. WILLITS HOSPITAL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that issued separate permanent disability awards for two industrial injuries, relying on the then-current *Benson* ruling. The WCAB deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees pending a Court of Appeal decision on *Benson*, which addressed whether successive injuries becoming permanent and stationary simultaneously should be combined or rated separately. The WCAB ordered the defendant to issue advances for permanent disability indemnity based on the original award amounts while withholding a portion pending the final resolution.

ScarberryWillits HospitalLiberty Mutual InsuranceADJ1940742ADJ4521061Licensed Vocational NurseIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryLow Back InjuryPermanent Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1979

Claim of Lennon v. Kaiser

The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a referee’s decision, determining that on January 24, 1975, the claimant was an employee of partners Ralph Kaiser and William Benson, and sustained injuries during employment. Testimony revealed conflicts regarding the claimant’s employment status and duties. Kaiser stated he never met the claimant until the day of the incident and instructed him to stay on the ground, yet admitted to an oral partnership with Benson and sharing profits. The claimant, conversely, testified both partners gave him directions, with Kaiser telling him to push shingles, and Benson having previously paid him. Despite the conflicting accounts, the board's finding of employment and injury was affirmed due to substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipPartnershipAccidentInjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConflicting TestimonyRoofing BusinessEmployee Status
References
0
Case No. ADJ3566182 (SAL 0077480) ADJ2182459 (SAL 0064054) ADJ3789006 (SAL 0067540) ADJ3867926 (SAL 0067541) ADJ1537096 (SAL 0069548) ADJ3077033 (SAL 0090420) ADJ1445385 (SAL 0100034)
Regular
Nov 07, 2008

JOSE PADILLA vs. CAMPBELL'S FRESH, Permissibly SelfInsured and Adjusted By CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision, rescinding it due to an unresolved issue regarding permanent and stationary dates for the applicant's injuries. The WCJ's reliance on the *Benson* decision for separate permanent disability awards was questioned given that *Benson* was under appellate review. The case is returned to the WCJ to clarify whether the permanent and stationary dates for the various injuries are the same, and to await the appellate decision in *Benson* if they are.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationCumulative TraumaAgreed Medical EvaluatorApportionmentBenson v. The Permanente Medical GroupWilkinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Claim of Williams v. New York State Department of Transportation

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1988, initially received permanent partial disability benefits at a mild rate in May 1996. Dissatisfied with this assessment, the claimant appealed, presenting medical evidence suggesting a more severe disability. This led the Workers’ Compensation Board to restore the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record concerning the degree of disability post-May 6, 1996. Although two physicians testified, with one indicating a moderate disability and another a total disability, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately awarded benefits at a moderate partial disability rate. Upon the claimant's subsequent appeal, the Board ruled that the claimant was precluded from raising the issue of their degree of disability, citing regulatory provisions. The appellate court found that the Board had abused its discretion, as the issue was explicitly remanded by the Board previously, and the claimant was still aggrieved by the WCLJ's award despite an increase in benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorMedical EvidenceDegree of DisabilityRemittalNew York LawAdministrative Appeal
References
0
Case No. ADJ2940485 (AHM 0129125) ADJ2870513 (AHM 0129124)
Regular
Dec 08, 2008

Jon Ledesma vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM

This case concerns the apportionment of permanent disability for an applicant with two successive injuries to overlapping body parts that became permanent and stationary simultaneously. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney's fees. The Board is awaiting the Court of Appeal's decision in *Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which addresses similar apportionment issues, before further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJon LedesmaCity of AnaheimJoint Findings Award and Orderindustrial injurypermanent disabilityseparate awardscombined awardsapportionmentBenson v. Permanente Medical Group
References
5
Case No. MON 225200 MON 225201
Regular
Mar 05, 2008

ERMA LESTER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA/BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; SCIF

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's challenges to the original award, particularly concerning the application of the *Wilkinson* rule and apportionment of permanent disability. The Board rescinded the original decision, finding the *Wilkinson* rule is no longer generally applicable under *Benson* and requiring the WCJ to re-evaluate permanent disability and apportionment based on causation. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with *Benson*, addressing potential issues of apportionment between the two alleged injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardFibromyalgiaTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentWilkinson ruleBenson v. The Permanente Medical GroupLabor Code Section 4663
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,846 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