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

Cefali v. Buffalo Brass Co., Inc.

Six former employees of Atlantic Richfield Company (Arco) sued Arco and American Brass Company (ABC) after being discharged by ABC shortly after Arco sold its Metals Division to ABC. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) through mail fraud, aiming to defraud them of superior Arco severance benefits. They also brought a state law claim for breach of employment agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the RICO claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege a 'pattern of racketeering activity' as required by RICO, finding the alleged acts to be part of a single transaction rather than continuous criminal activity. Consequently, the state law claim was also dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICOMail FraudRacketeering ActivitySeverance BenefitsEmployment AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7)Pattern RequirementContinuity Plus Relationship
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1992

Ehrenburg v. Outokumpu American Brass, Inc.

Thomas Ehrenburg, an employee of Outokumpu American Brass Company (OAB) and a member of United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 593 (Union), filed a hybrid action. He alleged breach of contract against OAB for denying him a day-shift machinist job despite his seniority, and breach of the duty of fair representation against the Union for refusing to grieve OAB's action. The defendants argued that an unwritten "no-first-bid" rule, which precluded new journeymen from bidding on their first job posting, justified their actions. Ehrenburg denied knowledge of this rule and claimed it violated the collective bargaining agreement. The District Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the existence, incorporation, and applicability of the oral "no-first-bid" agreement.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentSeniority RightsApprenticeship ProgramOral AgreementContract ViolationGrievance ProcessPlant-wide Seniority
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

Claim of Ceccato v. Outokumpu American Brass

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed July 21, 2009, which ruled that the claimant's application for review of a WCLJ decision was untimely. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991, later complicated by consequential depressive disorder. A WCLJ issued a decision on March 10, 2009, awarding benefits. The claimant's subsequent application for review was filed 42 days later, exceeding the 30-day statutory limit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. Despite the claimant's assertion of a misunderstanding regarding business versus calendar days for the deadline, the court affirmed the Board's exercise of broad discretion in denying the untimely application.

Workers' CompensationAppealUntimely ApplicationStatutory DeadlineBoard DiscretionPermanent Partial DisabilityDepressive DisorderWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2005

Kirk v. Outokumpu American Brass, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Hohl Industrial Services, Inc., sustained injuries in July 1999 after falling from a ladder at a facility owned by the defendant. The plaintiff initiated legal action, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendant sought and was granted summary judgment by the Supreme Court, which concluded that the plaintiff's work was routine maintenance, not a repair, and thus not covered under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the work performed during a routine "shut down" period for replacing worn parts qualified as routine maintenance, not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), and consequently, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was also dismissed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceLadder FallWorkplace InjuryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewConstruction WorkThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law
References
13
Case No. ADJ1209594 (OAK 0336362)
Regular
Mar 21, 2014

RICARDO MOTA vs. CAST ALUMINUM & BRASS CORPORATION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Ricardo Mota's Petition for Removal as untimely. The petition was filed on February 5, 2014, more than 20 days after the January 13, 2014 decision, and no additional mailing time applied due to personal service. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits as removal was not warranted and reconsideration after trial would be adequate. Finally, applicant's counsel received a strong admonishment for procedural violations.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingMandatory Settlement ConferenceVocational ReportReconsiderationAdmonishmentWCAB RulesSanctionsDismissedApplicant's Counsel
References
1
Case No. ADJ1209594
Regular
Nov 17, 2011

RICARDO MOTA vs. CAST ALUMINUM & BRASS CORPORATION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The petition sought to depose the applicant's spouse to gather information about his past drug abuse. The Board found that the marital privilege applies, preventing the deposition, as the applicant and his spouse are now married and have asserted this privilege. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which concluded that no exceptions to the marital privilege applied in this case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMarital PrivilegeDepositionEvidence CodeIndustrial InjuryDrug AbusePre-existing HistoryPsychiatric InjuryCognitive Dysfunction
References
0
Case No. ADJ3942275 (LAO 0879499) ADJ4411298 (LAO 0879500)
Regular
Jul 12, 2012

JESUS RODRIGO GUZMAN vs. CHAMPION ARROWHEAD BRASS PRODUCTS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves sanctions imposed against Erika Campos and Fred F. Hafezi, M.D., for bad faith actions and tactics. They are jointly and severally sanctioned $1,000.00 payable to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Sanctionable conduct included a misdated proof of service and misstatements of fact in a petition, as detailed in the WCJ's report. Neither Campos nor Hafezi responded to the Board's notice of intent to sanction.

SanctionsLabor Code section 5813Opinion and Decision After RemovalMisstatements of factBad faith actionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJProof of servicePetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Issue Sanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ2090837
Regular
Sep 21, 2015

MARTIN GARCIA vs. TRIANGLE BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case concerns lien claimant RS Medical's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed for non-appearance at a lien conference. RS Medical argued the conference was improperly scheduled as the underlying claim was unresolved, despite claims otherwise in a Declaration of Readiness. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the dismissal order, adopting the judge's recommendation that dismissal was improper under these circumstances. This decision acknowledges RS Medical's procedural arguments and the judge's report finding the dismissal unfair.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLien ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrder Dismissing LienWCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRescinded OrderLiquidation
References
0
Case No. ADJ8338422
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

OSVALDO ZARAGOZA vs. DRAHM & ECHTER, INC., ATHENS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order denies the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in denying the petition. Commissioner Brass concurred, but also recommended returning the matter for a Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions, as previously suggested by the WCJ. The specific grounds for denial and the reasons for the potential sanctions are not detailed in this excerpt.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOSVALDO ZARAGOZADRAHM & ECHTERINC.ATHENS INSURANCEADJ8338422Petition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and RecommendationConcurring Opinion
References
0
Case No. ADJ4549159
Regular
Jul 05, 2011

ROCCO GRIMALDI vs. CITY OF FULLERTON, ADMINSURE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn a finding that the defendant was entitled to a credit for overpayment of permanent disability indemnity against the applicant's future medical treatment. The majority found that awarding the credit was within the WCJ's discretion, despite the applicant's arguments of inequity. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing that the overpayment resulted from the defendant's denial of medical treatment and the applicant should not be penalized with a credit against future medical care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability IndemnityFuture Medical TreatmentCredit for OverpaymentInequityCompensable ConsequenceQualified Medical ExaminerAgreed Medical Examiner
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 16 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