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. ADJ4698250 (VNO 0548180); ADJ4211582 (VNO 0515892); ADJ4128894 (VNO 0447635); ADJ2306485 (VNO 0478103); ADJ2205033 (VNO 0451108); ADJ1950745 (VNO 0478101); ADJ1901291 (VNO 0478102); ADJ7914357
Regular
Oct 08, 2025

Robert Brown vs. California Department of Transportation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The applicant, Robert Brown, sustained various injuries while working for the California Department of Transportation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration after the defendant, California Department of Transportation, challenged a prior decision that found the applicant permanently totally disabled. During reconsideration, the parties settled the case with a Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Appeals Board rescinded the earlier findings and orders and returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to review and approve the settlement agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Department of TransportationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundJoint Findings Award and OrdersWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgepermanent total disabilityCompromise and Releaserescindedreturned to trial level
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Westbury v. Department of Transportation

The Village of Westbury initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Department of Transportation (DOT) for alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Village sought to annul a negative declaration issued by DOT for the reconstruction of an interchange and a proposed widening of the Northern State Parkway, arguing that the projects' cumulative environmental effects required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, annulling the negative declaration and remitting the case to DOT. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that DOT erred by not considering the combined environmental effects of the interchange reconstruction and the parkway widening, as these were interdependent projects under SEQRA regulations. The Court also held that DOT must apply the more protective Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations and that the Village's proceeding was timely because DOT failed to provide proper notice of the negative declaration.

Environmental LawSEQRACPLR Article 78Negative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementProject SegmentationCumulative ImpactsNotice RequirementsStatute of LimitationsHighway Construction
References
7
Case No. ADJ10160405
Regular
Dec 17, 2019

JEFFREY JENSEN vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This decision addresses Jeffrey Jensen's workers' compensation claim against the California Department of Transportation. The Appeals Board affirmed the prior findings and award with a minor amendment. The amendment clarifies that the applicant stipulated to sustaining injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his head, neck, low back, shoulders, and knees. This amendment ensures consistency with the stipulated facts and awarded benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulationAOE/COEAmended Findings and AwardSupervising Environmental PlannerCalifornia Department of TransportationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundHead Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ16389400
Regular
Apr 01, 2025

JOHNNY LUNETTA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Johnny Lunetta sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award concerning permanent disability and apportionment, with the defendant California Department of Transportation arguing for apportionment to previous injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, answer, and WCJ's report. Based on a preliminary review, the WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues, particularly regarding medical-legal reporting and apportionment. A final decision on the merits of the reconsideration is deferred pending further review and consideration of the entire record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFirst Amended Findings and AwardApportionmentPermanent DisabilityArising Out of and in the Course of EmploymentAOE/COEBilateral KneesHeavy Equipment MechanicLegally Uninsured
References
25
Case No. ADJ999430 (PAS 0009969) ADJ3798683 (LAO 0577997) ADJ1783473 (LAO 0785005)
Regular
May 22, 2014

KARIN CHEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification filed by applicant Karin Chen against the State of California, Department of Transportation. The Board adopted and incorporated the administrative law judge's report, finding no grounds for disqualification. Therefore, the Board's order confirms that the petition is denied.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdeny disqualificationLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyADJ999430KARIN CHENDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Square v. Sadik-Khan

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision by the New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the City of New York to install a bike share station in Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino Square Park. They contended that the installation violated the public trust doctrine and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court determined that while the park is impliedly dedicated parkland, the bike share station serves a proper park purpose. Furthermore, the court found that the respondents' decision to site the station was rational, based on technical considerations and public input, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied and dismissed in its entirety.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland UseBike Share StationsArticle 78 PetitionAdministrative ReviewMunicipal PlanningUrban DevelopmentNew York LawEnvironmental PolicyCommunity Engagement
References
15
Case No. ADJ6708774
Regular
Nov 21, 2012

AVNEET PALAHA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding its claim for credit against applicant Avneet Palaha's workers' compensation benefits. The DOT sought credit for a $305,000 civil settlement Palaha received from her employer for the same alleged sexual harassment and retaliation that led to her workers' compensation claim. The WCJ had denied the credit, interpreting the civil settlement's release clause to exclude workers' compensation claims. However, the Board found the release language preserved the employer's right to seek credit. The matter was returned for further proceedings to determine the extent of the credit, considering employer negligence and offsets for applicant's costs and fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCivil SettlementCreditDouble RecoveryEmployer NegligenceMutual ReleaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCumulative TraumaPsyche Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ11174645
Regular
Dec 31, 2019

RAYMOND LEONG vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF\nTRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION\nINSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury aggravation filed by Raymond Leong against the California Department of Transportation. The defendant sought reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award, arguing the claim was not compensable under Labor Code section 3208.3 and challenging the medical evidence. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to correct a typographical error regarding the employer's insurance status. The Board otherwise affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, finding the injury compensable and the PQME's report substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Department of TransportationState Compensation Insurance FundAmended Findings and Awardworkers' compensation administrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationinjury arising out of and in the course of employmentpsychiatric conditionLabor Code section 3208.3panel qualified medical evaluator
References
0
Case No. ADJ1 0277951
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

DANNY HILL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, legally uninsured and adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant, Department of Transportation, sought to compel the applicant, Danny Hill, to disclose all prior permanent disabilities and physical impairments under Labor Code section 4663(d). The WCJ initially denied the defendant's petition, finding no good cause. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's denial, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ's denial unsupported, as Labor Code section 4663(d) unequivocally requires such disclosure upon request.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Compel DisclosureLabor Code section 4663(d)permanent disabilitiesphysical impairmentsWCJ denialAppeals Boardtrial levelmedical treatmentapplicant disclosure
References
2
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 7,080 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