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. ADJ3821535
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

CARLETTE MOOREHEAD CALDWELL vs. SCIF/HR DEPARTMENT, SCIF SCIF EMPLOYEES ALL

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant against a March 18, 2010 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. The WCAB deems reconsideration necessary to further study the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Pending a Decision After Reconsideration, all future communications must be directed to the Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersService by MailSCIF/HR Department
References
0
Case No. ADJ1034130 (SAC 0249097)
Regular
Nov 04, 2014

RUSSELL CALDWELL vs. ROY E. LAY TRUCKING, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Russell Caldwell concerning a workers' compensation claim against Roy E. Lay Trucking. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's (WCJ) report. Adopting the WCJ's report and recommendation, the WCAB dismissed Caldwell's petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedRoy E. Lay TruckingSedgwick CMSADJ1034130SAC 0249097Russell Caldwell
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2016

Oliphant v. Caldwell

Plaintiff William Oliphant, an African American man, brought a Section 1983 action against Anne Caldwell and David Jolly, alleging he was denied equal protection through a failure to promote him at the Orange County Department of Social Services in 2011 and 2012. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their promotion decisions. The court denied the motion, finding that a reasonable jury could infer racial discrimination as a motivating factor due to evidence such as racial disparities in supervisory positions, Oliphant's superior qualifications, and potential pretext in the defendants' explanations.

Employment DiscriminationSection 1983Equal ProtectionSummary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationPromotion DenialCivil Service LawDisparate TreatmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkFederal Court
References
17
Case No. ADJ17606447
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

Zachary Penprase vs. Philadelphia Phillies, Fargo-Moorehead Redhawks

Applicant Zachary Penprase seeks reconsideration of an August 14, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found a lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants Philadelphia Phillies and Fargo-Moorehead Redhawks concerning Penprase's industrial injury claims. Penprase argues that personal jurisdiction exists because he was recruited and signed contracts with both teams in California. The Appeals Board has granted the petition for reconsideration, acknowledging the need for further review of the merits and the entire record. A final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending this further review.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPersonal JurisdictionProfessional AthleteContract of HireForum StateMinimum ContactsGeneral AppearanceWaiverRecord DevelopmentReconsideration
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldwell v. Toia

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involves an appeal from a judgment that reversed a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services. The appellant, a public assistance recipient, was initially denied a "Support Incentive Bonus" despite having an existing assignment of support rights. The court below held she was entitled to the bonus from February 1, 1976. The appellate court found the appellant's 1973 support assignment, while not as comprehensive as the federal requirement, functioned similarly and served the legislative purposes of the bonus program. Given the practical similarity of assignments and the equities, the judgment was modified to direct the Chautauqua County Department of Social Services to pay the appellant the bonus from July 1, 1975, to May 1, 1976, plus interest.

Support Incentive BonusPublic AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenSupport OrdersAssignment of RightsSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Welfare RecipientsChautauqua CountyAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Moorehead

Defendant was indicted on charges of grand larceny in the third degree and multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree for cashing workers’ compensation checks he was no longer entitled to receive. The County Court of Broome County granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment due to a lack of criminal jurisdiction, finding insufficient evidence that defendant's conduct had a "particular effect" on Broome County. The People appealed this dismissal, arguing that Broome County, being self-insured for workers' compensation, suffered a direct financial impact. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding there was no grand jury evidence that Broome County suffered an actual loss or that the defendant intended to harm the County, thus failing to establish jurisdiction.

Criminal JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation FraudIndictment DismissalParticular Effect DoctrineCounty Court AppealGrand LarcenyFalse Instrument FilingBroome CountyUtica National Insurance GroupSelf-Insured
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1996

Claim of Moorehead v. Union Press Co.

The employer, Union Press Company, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from April 18, 1996, which found them in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 for failing to maintain a workers' compensation insurance policy. The employer argued their policy, issued by Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, had not properly expired due to a lack of strict compliance with cancellation requirements under Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5). However, the Board concluded, and the Appellate Division affirmed, that the policy expired on October 1, 1992, based on a clear course of conduct and intent by both the employer and the carrier not to renew, despite earlier improper cancellation attempts. The employer's subsequent payments were determined to be for past due premiums, not for continued coverage.

Workers' Compensation Law ViolationInsurance Policy ExpirationPolicy Cancellation ComplianceEmployer's Insurance ObligationNon-Renewal of InsuranceAppellate AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Board AppealPremium Payment HistoryCoverage DisputeJudicial Review of Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2003

Claim of Cammarata v. Caldwell & Cook, Inc.

Jack Cammarata, a drywall finisher, died in 1996 from mesothelioma, prompting his wife to file for workers' compensation benefits, alleging workplace asbestos exposure during his employment with Azor Drywall Company between 1964 and 1967. The Workers’ Compensation Board found Azor's carrier, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, liable, ruling that mesothelioma was an occupational disease causally linked to his employment. Azor and Merchants appealed, contending they were not liable because Azor had ceased operations before the disablement. The court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that liability rests with the last employer in the disease-causing employment, and substantial evidence supported Merchants Mutual as the responsible carrier for Azor's coverage through 1967.

Occupational DiseaseMesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityLast Employer RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewDrywall Finisher
References
3
Case No. ADJ1493279
Regular
Jan 06, 2009

CALDWELL JOHNSON vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

The petition for reconsideration is dismissed as there is no final order. A petition for reconsideration is only properly made from a final order.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderRescinded DecisionTrial LevelPenaltiesAttorney FeesExceeded PowersFindings of FactSubstantive Right
References
6
Case No. ADJ1493279 (LAO 440248)
Regular
Oct 22, 2008

CALDWELL JOHNSON vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded prior orders awarding penalties and attorney fees. The Board found the record unclear regarding whether the defendant had fully paid awarded penalties and returned the matter to the trial level for further clarification on this issue. The ultimate goal is to ensure a fair balance and substantial justice between the parties concerning the amounts paid versus owed.

Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5penalty awardattorney feesreconsiderationaccounting summaryunreasonable delaypayment of compensationestate of applicantself-insured
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15 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