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. ADJ6990605
Regular
Oct 18, 2010

JOSE TINOCO vs. FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION, CAMBRIDGE CONCORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered Jose Tinoco's Petition for Removal. Based on the administrative law judge's report, which the WCAB adopted, the Petition for Removal was denied. This means the case will proceed as determined by the administrative law judge. The order denying removal was filed and served on October 18, 2010.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportDenial of RemovalFRU-CON CONSTRUCTIONCAMBRIDGE CONCORDADJ6990605
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giemza v. Town of Cambridge

This appeal concerns the shifting of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant was injured in 1993 while working for the Town of Cambridge, leading to a workers' compensation claim and a third-party action. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found work-related injuries and awarded benefits, but noted the applicability of § 25-a was pending the third-party action, which later settled. Subsequently, the WCLJ ruled that liability shifted to the Special Fund, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, asserting there was no "true closing" of the case due to the pending third-party action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the shift of liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTrue ClosingThird-Party ActionLiability ShiftWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewPending ProceedingsSelf-Insured CarrierWorkers' Compensation Law § 29
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Starr v. Cambridge Green Homeowners Ass'n

Plaintiff, a roofer, was injured after falling from a roof during a construction project. He slipped on wet wood, fell past a scaffold, and sustained multiple fractures, requiring surgeries. He sued Cambridge Green Homeowners Association, Inc. (owner) and Thomas Rose (general contractor) under Labor Law § 240, and Fred Hanlon (co-worker) for negligence in scaffold installation. The appellate court affirmed the judgments and order, finding the jury's verdict consistent and the damages award reasonable given the severity of plaintiff's injuries and their permanent impact on his life and work.

Roofing AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 240Proximate CauseNegligencePersonal InjuryDamages AwardPain and SufferingAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lewis v. Cambridge Filter Corp.

Claimant allegedly injured her back while working for Cambridge Filter Corporation in June 1982. She filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by an Administrative Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed this decision, relying primarily on the claimant’s testimony. However, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's determination, concluding it lacked substantial evidence. The court highlighted significant inconsistencies in the claimant's account compared to unimpeached testimony from impartial witnesses and supporting documentary evidence regarding the injury report and medical history, remitting the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceALJ ReversalBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyWitness TestimonyControverted Claim
References
4
Case No. ADJ2137324
Regular
Nov 19, 2010

DEBRA ANTHONY vs. AC TRANSIT, ROSS STORES; SEDGWICK WALNUT CREEK, CAMBRIDGE CONCORD

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award due to insufficient substantial medical evidence. The primary treating physician's reports were deemed unreliable as they were based on an inaccurate post-injury work history. The Board found the record needed further development regarding the applicant's disability and cumulative injury. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings, including potentially supplemental medical reporting or deposition.

WCABADJ2137324OAK 0317296Debra AnthonyAC TransitRoss StoresSedgwick Walnut CreekCambridge ConcordOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationPermanent Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2008

Malmon v. East 84th Apartments Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order concerning motions for summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action. Third-party plaintiffs Concord Restoration, Inc. and Liberty International sought indemnification and a declaration of Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest's duty to defend. The court modified the prior order, affirming that Hartford had a duty to defend due to the claim falling within its insurance ambit, but declared that Hartford had no obligation to indemnify. This decision was based on a Workers’ Compensation Board determination and evidence indicating that Hi-Tech, not Marble Unique, LLC, was the employer at the time of the accident, and that Marble was not on site.

Summary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendIndemnificationThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer LiabilitySubrogationAppellate DivisionInsurance Coverage
References
4
Case No. ADJ4411940 (MON 0326610)
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

EDDIE MONTGOMERY vs. JC PENNEY, AIG CLAIMS CONCORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Eddie Montgomery's Petition for Reconsideration against JC Penney and AIG Claims Concord. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed. California law dictates a 25-day filing window for reconsideration petitions after service of a decision. The WCAB emphasized that this deadline is jurisdictional, and an untimely petition cannot be considered.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalWCABWCJ DecisionLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsService by MailExtension of TimeBusiness Day
References
4
Case No. ADJ6761550 ADJ6761551
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

JUAN SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA; PSI, administered by CAMBRIDGE

This case summary is for lawyer Juan Sanchez, who is seeking reconsideration from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concerning his claims against the City of Santa Clara and PSI, administered by Cambridge. The WCAB has granted Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration, indicating that the initial decision warrants further review. Pending the final decision after reconsideration, all case-related communications must be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners in San Francisco, rather than any local office. The specific claims and underlying facts leading to this reconsideration are not detailed in this excerpt.

Petition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersSan Francisco District OfficeADJ6761550ADJ6761551City of Santa ClaraPSI
References
0
Case No. ADJ2564944 (FRE 0224116) ADJ4261717 (FRE 0227914)
Regular
Nov 07, 2008

ANN SWENGEL vs. CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, returning the case for further proceedings. The Board will allow the Workers' Compensation Judge to consider an additional penalty for delayed Temporary Disability Indemnity payments and to re-evaluate the Applicant's Average Weekly Wage. Both parties are cautioned for violating Appeals Board rules by submitting extraneous documents with their petitions.

ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardUnreasonable DelayTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 5814Attorney's FeesSanctionAverage Weekly WagePsychiatric BenefitsMedical Treatment Expenses
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fonda v. Cambridge Filter Corp.

A claimant developed asbestosis from pre-1972 work-related asbestos exposure, diagnosed in 1991. Although the asbestosis did not cause pulmonary disability, the claimant developed a disabling panic or anxiety disorder due to the increased cancer risk. The Workers' Compensation Board denied benefits, ruling that pre-1974 asbestosis without total disability is non-compensable and a consequential anxiety disorder does not constitute an accident or occupational disease. The appellate court found that entitlement to compensation depends on whether the claimant was totally disabled by two inseparable causative agents, one of which was the asbestosis, especially since the Board had implied a causal link between asbestosis and the anxiety disorder. Because the Board failed to determine the extent of the claimant’s disability or the inseparability of the conditions, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAnxiety DisorderPanic DisorderCausationTotal DisabilityCompensabilityAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 167 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