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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. ADJ234009 (OAK 0324352) ADJ3704382 (OAK 0335469)
Regular
Jan 12, 2010

Carole Young vs. IPC SECURITY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ABM adjusted by ESIS

The applicant sought removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) alleging bias due to denied trial requests, refusal to consider evidence, and case delays. The Appeals Board denied the removal and disqualification, stating a subjective perception of bias is insufficient grounds. The Board returned the case to the Presiding WCJ to address the defendant's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardremovaldisqualificationworkers' compensation judge (WCJ)biasvexatious litigantPWCJWCAB Rule 10782applicantdefendant
References
1
Case No. OAK 0317088
Regular
Aug 08, 2007

BEHZAD OLFATPOUR vs. ZOLMAN CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal due to applicant's counsel's failure to properly manage the case during a staff transition, which led to the discovery period being closed prematurely. Despite not condoning counsel's conduct, the Board remanded the case for another mandatory settlement conference before trial. This action was taken due to the totality of circumstances as outlined by the WCJ.

RemovalExcusable NeglectDeclaration of ReadinessMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)Industrial InjuryProject ManagerWeltin Law OfficeSubstitution of Attorney
References
0
Case No. ADJ2552389 (OAK 0301853), ADJ2702419 (OAK 0301854), ADJ350772 (OAK 0301856), ADJ3854894 (OAK 0321466)
Regular
Mar 26, 2012

BARBARA LIGE-DIXON vs. A.C. TRANSIT, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The defendant, AC Transit, sought reconsideration of an award finding four industrial injuries and three awards of permanent disability for Barbara Lige-Dixon. The primary dispute concerned whether the defendant could credit permanent disability advances made in one case (resulting in zero disability) against its liability in other cases. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding equitable considerations supported allowing the credit across all cases due to overlapping injuries and evolving medical apportionment. The Board amended the award to permit the $12,930 advance credit, while deferring the issue of attorney fees against third-party recovery for further trial-level proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredJoint Findings Award and OrdersPermanent DisabilityPermanent Disability AdvancesCreditThird Party RecoveryEquitable ConsiderationsApportionmentAgreed Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. OAK 0284707, OAK 0291936
Regular
Jan 29, 2008

SHARON TAKAHASHI vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, OCTAGON RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves two cumulative trauma injuries to applicant's upper extremities. The Appeals Board rescinded prior findings and remanded the case for new decisions due to the WCJ's failure to apply the controlling case law of *Benson* and *Brodie*. These cases mandate a causation-based apportionment and a percentage-based calculation for permanent disability indemnity, rather than the WCJ's previous approach.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryUpper extremitiesConsequential headachesLeft knee injuryRight ankle injuryPermanent disabilityAttorney's feesCumulative traumaApportionment
References
3
Case No. OAK 0278433 OAK 0295169 OAK 0307341 OAK 0307342 OAK 0307343 OAK 0321700
Regular
Jul 06, 2007

LATONIA PACE vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA/SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and COUNTY OF ALAMEDA/AIG/ TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Defendant AIG concerning prior workers' compensation decisions. The Appeals Board dismissed AIG's petition because AIG was not newly aggrieved by the Board's prior order, which affirmed the original judge's decision without amendment. AIG failed to timely petition for reconsideration of the initial judge's decision, and therefore, cannot now seek review of it through this petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedCumulative TraumaBilateral ShouldersUpper BackBilateral Upper ExtremitiesPermanent DisabilityWCJ Findings and AwardAggrieved Party
References
0
Case No. ADJ2915211 (OAK 1264419), ADJ1931310 (OAK 0333489), ADJ1584555 (OAK 0263648)
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

BELINDA ALLEN vs. PETCO; BROADSPIRE CIGA FOLSOM; PETCO; AIG CLAIMS, HOME INSTEAD SENIOR CARE; HARTFORD

This case involves Belinda Allen seeking workers' compensation benefits against multiple defendants, including Petco and others. The applicant alleges industrial injuries resulting from her employment. The case is proceeding through the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Further details regarding the specific nature of the injuries and the parties' arguments would be needed for a complete understanding.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCase NumberPetcoBroadsPIRE CIGA FOLSOMAIG CLAIMSHome Instead Senior CareHartford
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. OAK 0299866 OAK 0299867 OAK 0299868 OAK 0308810
Regular
Feb 08, 2008

JOAN STEPP vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior award. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings, requiring the administrative law judge to reconsider the applicant's permanent disability in light of the ruling in *Benson v. The Permanente Medical Group*. This decision emphasizes the need for physicians to provide specific apportionment of disability causation, consistent with Labor Code Sections 4663 and 4664, rather than combining disabilities from distinct injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award & OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaUpper ExtremitiesLow BackSpinePermanent Total DisabilityApportionment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 16,758 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