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

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
16
Case No. ADJ9196082 (MF) ADJ10238220
Regular
Oct 02, 2019

JOHN FORKNER vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following an unsuccessful writ of review by Southern California Edison. The Appeals Board found the applicant's attorney's requested rate of $450/hour reasonable. Despite the sole appellate issue being the substantiality of a medical opinion, the Board deemed the case of above-average complexity due to extensive briefing and exhibits filed by both parties. Therefore, the Board awarded $18,000.00 in appellate attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California EdisonPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801attorney's feesappellate attorney's feesAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEabove average complexityfactual issues
References
1
Case No. SRO 112972
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

STELLA JUAREZ vs. ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, NELSON STAFFING, CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY by REM, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) has the right to seek contribution from Centre Insurance Company for workers' compensation benefits paid to an applicant with a cumulative trauma injury. CIGA's claim is not barred by the one-year limitation period for employer contribution claims under Labor Code section 5500.5(e), as CIGA is not an employer and Centre is considered "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). Therefore, the Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration and reversed the arbitrator's decision, awarding CIGA contribution from Centre.

CIGAContributionReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderLabor Code section 5500.5Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Cumulative TraumaGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerOther Insurance
References
8
Case No. ADJ1857578
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

MIRNA LICEA vs. MINSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

This case involves a lien claim by Missirian Orthopedic Medical Group, assigned to KM Financial Services, for medical treatment provided to Mirna Licea. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), representing the insolvent insurer Phico Insurance Company, denied the lien based on Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which excludes claims by assignees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the statute clearly prohibits payment to assignees, including medical providers who have assigned their accounts receivable. The Board relied on *Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. CIGA* for the principle that assigned claims are not "covered claims" under the Guarantee Act.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPhico Insurance Companyliquidationinsolvent insurerlien claimantassigneecovered claimInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2021

Matter of Suhr v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv.

Petitioner Daniel R. Suhr requested records from the New York State Department of Civil Service under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), specifically seeking employee names and home zip codes. Respondent partially denied the request, withholding home zip codes citing privacy exemptions. Suhr then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the Supreme Court partially granted his application, ordering the disclosure of the zip codes. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that home zip codes are functionally equivalent to an address for FOIL purposes. The court concluded that disclosing home zip codes, when paired with employee names, constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(a) and 87(2)(b), outweighing the minimal public interest in such information.

FOILPublic Officers LawPrivacy ExemptionHome Zip CodesState EmployeesCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyData DisclosurePersonal Privacy
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 6,676 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