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. ADJ7948651
Regular
May 09, 2016

Barbara Tom vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, JT2 INTEGRATED

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by the defendant, City of Oakland, following an award of permanent disability to applicant Barbara Tom. The defendant argued the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred by not deferring to the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion and by not developing the record with the AME. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the AME's opinion deficient. The WCJ's report detailed how the primary treating physician's report was more persuasive and thoroughly reasoned, supporting the WCJ's findings over the AME's.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Primary Treating Physician (PTP)AMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSubstantial EvidenceWCJ OpinionMedical Opinion Deference
References
2
Case No. ADJ9400192
Regular
Oct 08, 2015

MARGARITA SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

In Sanchez v. City of Santa Barbara, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration. This decision was made to allow the WCAB sufficient time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The WCAB aims to ensure a just and reasoned outcome after further study and potential proceedings. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ9400192City of Santa BarbaraJT2 Integrated ResourcesStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
1
Case No. GOL 0093796
Regular
Apr 19, 2007

John Andersen vs. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Court of Appeal held that the City of Santa Barbara violated Labor Code section 132a by requiring an employee injured on the job to use vacation time for medical appointments while allowing others to use sick leave. While upholding the Board's decisions on permanent disability and apportionment, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine penalties and costs for the section 132a violation. The Appeals Board has now amended its prior decision to formally find a violation of Labor Code section 132a and returned the matter to the trial level for the determination of awards, fines, and costs.

Labor Code section 132aRemittiturPermanent disabilityApportionmentDiscriminationVacation timeSick leaveIndustrial injuryCourt of AppealWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ4295446 (GOL 0087464)
Regular
Mar 20, 2014

Virginia Landaw vs. Toyota of Santa Barbara, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to have hearings held at the Santa Barbara district office rather than Oxnard. The WCAB found that the relocation was necessary due to insufficient space at the Santa Barbara facility, impacting lobby, hearing room, and parking availability. The Board reaffirmed its authority to calendar hearings at different offices based on available resources and cited the applicant's minimal increased travel as insufficient grounds for removal. The WCAB also highlighted the availability of CourtCall and the ongoing efforts to secure a more suitable Santa Barbara location.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDivision of Workers' CompensationDistrict OfficeVenueCourtCallMandatory Settlement ConferenceExpedited HearingJudicial NoticeAdministrative Law Judge
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between City of Oswego & Oswego City Firefighters Ass'n, Local 2707

The City of Oswego appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award in favor of the Oswego City Firefighters Association, Local 2707. The City contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by contravening the Retirement and Social Security Law and Civil Service Law regarding firefighter retirement contributions. The central issue was whether an expired collective bargaining agreement remained in effect under the Triborough doctrine, thereby obligating the City to pay firefighter contributions to the New York State Police and Fireman’s Retirement System for newly hired employees. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the arbitration award was not contrary to statutes or public policy. It held that the Triborough doctrine maintained the terms of the expired agreement until a new one was negotiated, thus the Section 8 exception applied to the firefighters.

ArbitrationPublic EmployerCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement BenefitsCivil Service LawRetirement and Social Security LawTriborough DoctrineGrievanceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06241 [210 AD3d 765]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2022

Matter of City of Yonkers v. Police Benevolent Assn. of the City of Yonkers

The City of Yonkers appealed an order that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of Yonkers. The dispute stemmed from the City's unilateral reduction of police officer overtime hours, which violated an oral agreement to maintain a 60-hour overtime cap. The Supreme Court granted the respondent's motion to confirm the arbitration award, which directed the City to rescind the 2018 policy and restore the 2011 policy. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the arbitration award did not violate strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's power, as it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardOvertime PolicyPublic Employment Relations BoardImproper Practice ChargeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationVacaturConfirmation of AwardMunicipal Law
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04083
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of King v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves Charmaine King and other charter school petitioners seeking to compel the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York to provide COVID-19 screening tests to charter school students and staff, mirroring services offered to public school students. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition broadly, directing respondents to administer tests to New York City-resident children attending petitioners' charter schools to the same extent as public schools, and also to staff. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this judgment, affirming that Education Law § 912 mandates the provision of health screening tests, including COVID-19 tests, to resident children attending non-public schools on the same terms as public schools. However, the appellate court specifically limited the directive to New York City-resident children attending the petitioners' charter schools, excluding staff and non-party schools, as the statute only covers children, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

COVID-19 testingCharter schoolsPublic schoolsEducation Law § 912Health and Welfare ServicesEstablishment ClauseAppellate DivisionSchool districtsJudicial reviewMandate
References
3
Case No. ADJ1259001
Regular
Apr 08, 2014

Patricia Scharli vs. County of Santa Barbara, Corvel Corporation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Patricia Scharli's Petition for Removal. The denial was based on the administrative law judge's report, which concluded that moving a mandatory settlement conference from Santa Barbara to Oxnard due to space limitations at the new Santa Barbara office was a mere inconvenience, not significant prejudice. The WCAB has statutory authority to determine hearing locations based on budgetary and space constraints, and can calendar hearings at different offices even without formally changing venue. The WCAB encourages the use of CourtCall for attorneys to mitigate travel difficulties for applicants.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDivision of Workers' CompensationDistrict OfficeVenueCalendaring AuthorityMedical Treatment Lien ConferenceCourtCallMandatory Settlement ConferenceExpedited Hearings
References
1
Case No. ADJ9198656; ADJ9192994
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

JEANETTE LIRA vs. COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM, PSI, SANSUM SANTA BARBARA MEDICAL, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants Cottage Health System and Zurich American Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award. Cottage Health contended it was incorrectly identified as the liable employer instead of Sansum Santa Barbara Medical, insured by Zurich. Zurich argued there were multiple injuries or that compensation was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board denied Zurich's petition, granted Cottage Health's petition, and amended the award to reflect Sansum Santa Barbara Medical, insured by Zurich American Insurance Company, as the liable party.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJeanette LiraCottage Health SystemGallagher BassettZurich American Insurance CompanySansum Santa Barbara MedicalAdjudication NumbersJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationComplex Regional Pain Syndrome
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 3,706 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