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
Apr 22, 2010

Capitol Awning Co. v. Local 137 Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

Capitol Awning Company, Inc. ("Capitol") filed an action against Local 137, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO ("Local 137"), seeking damages under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act's secondary boycott provisions. Capitol asserted that Local 137 engaged in conduct violating § 8(b)(4)(i) and § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the NLRA. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court denied Capitol's motion and granted in part and denied in part Local 137's motion. Capitol's claim under § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), related to threats and coercion against neutral parties, survived, while its § 8(b)(4)(i) claim, concerning inducing employees to strike, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeLMRANLRASummary JudgmentUnion ThreatsCoercionPicketingDistrict Court
References
28
Case No. ADJ4250013
Regular
Mar 01, 2018

LYNELLIA NICHOLS vs. CAPITOL FACTORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the date of service for a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board's January 8, 2017 decision was mistakenly served, when the correct service date should have been January 8, 2018. The Board is correcting this error without further proceedings, as permitted by statute. The corrected decision will reflect the amended service date of January 8, 2018.

Clerical Error CorrectionDate of ServiceOpinion and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSupplemental ProceedingsAmended Date of ServiceADJ4250013LAO 0725006Capitol Factors
References
1
Case No. ADJ1793931 (OAK 0336568)
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

MICHAEL KESTEL vs. CAPITOL BUICK PONTIAC GMC, ZENITH, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

This case concerns an appeal regarding the applicant's permanent disability rating for upper extremity injury. The defendants contended that the original $24\%$ rating was improperly calculated, specifically challenging the inclusion of grip loss as a factor. The Appeals Board found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion on grip loss to be speculative and not substantial evidence under the *Almaraz II* decision. Consequently, the Board granted reconsideration, amended the award to $16\%$ permanent disability, and affirmed the remainder of the original findings.

AMEAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA Guidespermanent disability ratingWPIwhole person impairmentgrip lossupper extremity impairmentAlmaraz IIsubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ784749 (AHM 0115079)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

Carlos Bautista vs. Prime Factors, Inc., Factory Filament, Inc., Isaac Powell, Uninsured Employers Fund

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Carlos Bautista for an industrial injury to his spine sustained in November 2003. The applicant was hired in California by Prime Factors Inc., an illegally uninsured employer, and then flown to Mississippi for a job. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is denying Isaac Powell's petition for reconsideration of prior findings. These findings established California's jurisdiction, the employer's uninsured status, and the applicant's industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrime FactorsInc.Isaac PowellUninsured Employers FundIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Leonard v. Unisys Corp.

Linda M. Leonard suffered severe back injuries in 1987 due to a defective office chair, leading to a lawsuit against her employer (Department of Motor Vehicles) and the chair's sellers/manufacturers (Human Factor Technologies, Inc., Burroughs Corporation, Standard Register Company, and Unisys Corporation). The lawsuit alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. A jury found certain defendants strictly liable and apportioned fault, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to Leonard and her husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, upholding the jury's verdict, the damage awards, and the denial of indemnification claims between defendants, while rejecting challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

Products liabilityBreach of warrantyNegligenceIndemnification claimLoss of consortium damagesPain and suffering awardJury verdict reviewApportionment of liabilitySuccessor corporation liabilityDefective chair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1987

Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center v. Axelrod

The petitioner, a hospital not a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals, sought to increase its 1983 third-party reimbursement rates from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. This application was based on a 'trend factor' applicable to League members, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement which the petitioner also adopted. The Commissioner denied the request, citing the petitioner's non-membership in the League. The Supreme Court annulled this determination, directing the use of the League trend factor. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of the Commissioner's arbitrary determination was affirmed, but the direction to use the specific trend factor was deleted, and the case was remitted for recalculation based on permissible factors.

CPLR Article 78Third-Party Reimbursement RatesTrend FactorMedicaid RatesBlue Cross RatesWorkers' Compensation RatesNo-Fault RatesPublic Health LawArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Franklin v. New England Motor Freight

Claimant, a tractor-trailer truck driver, suffered work-related back injuries in 2012 and 2013, leading to disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, factoring in vocational considerations. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reduced the award, ruling that vocational factors are not applicable for temporary disability determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) does not permit consideration of vocational factors for temporary partial disabilities, reserving such considerations for the duration of permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawWage-earning capacityTemporary partial disabilityPermanent partial disabilityVocational factorsAppellate reviewBack injuryTractor-trailer truck driverInjury recurrenceCompensation rate
References
7
Case No. ADJ6721939
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

BERTHA NORIEGA GARCIA vs. PATRICK L. HINRICHSEN, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

This case is remanded for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not fully analyze the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor under the *Ogilvie* decisions. The ALJ improperly relied solely on applicant's testimony for lost earnings without a proper *Ogilvie* analysis, including the duration of post-injury earnings and consideration of other factors affecting earning capacity. The ALJ must conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, weigh the evidence, and explain how the adjusted DFEC factor reflects the applicant's actual earning capacity compared to the scheduled rating. The Board also clarified that temporary disability indemnity is not to be treated as post-injury earnings.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFECOgilvie analysisRebuttalScheduled Permanent Disability RatingPost-injury earningsEarnings lossTemporary disability indemnityPermanent and stationary dateTriers-of-fact
References
3
Case No. ADJ2110739 (MON 0313927)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Rosalind Eskridge (Vallery) vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case returns to the trial level for a comprehensive re-analysis of applicant's permanent disability rating, specifically focusing on the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor. The Board rescinded the prior award because the judge's decision did not fully adhere to the *Ogilvie* en banc decisions, which mandate a specific four-step analysis for rebutting the DFEC. The judge must now conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, potentially developing the record further, to determine if the applicant's demonstrated earning loss and other relevant factors, including *Montana* factors, justify an individualized DFEC adjustment over the scheduled rating. The applicant bears the burden of proving that her evidence substantially overcomes the prima facie validity of the scheduled DFEC.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECPermanent Disability Rating Schedule2005 PDRSOgilvie analysisAgreed Medical ExaminerDisability Evaluation UnitDEUAgreed Medical Examiner
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 838 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