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. SRO 0088351
Significant

Cheryl Coldiron, Applicant vs. Compuware Corporation, California Insurance Guarantee Association

The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award, substituting the correct insurance carrier for the employer and establishing that third-party administrators must disclose their client's identity in all proceedings.

Third-party administrator disclosureInsurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Insurance CompanyCompuware CorporationGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.High self-insured retentionPolicy provisionsLabor Code section 5813 sanctionsInsurance Code sections 11650 et seq.
References
7
Case No. SRO 0088351
En Banc

Cheryl Coldiron vs. Compuware Corporation, California Insurance Guarantee Association, Reliance National Insurance Company (in liquidation), Intercare Insurance Services, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board held that a third-party administrator must disclose the identity of its client (employer or insurance carrier) and amended the award to be against the insurer, which had gone into liquidation and was succeeded by CIGA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardThird-party administratorDisclosureSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Insurance Code Sections 11650116571165911660Gallagher Bassett Services
References
7
Case No. ADJ3633276 (SAC 0360146)
Regular
Jan 24, 2012

GAYE MARTIN vs. LENNAR CORPORATION, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal filed by defendants Lennar Corporation and its third-party administrator, Broadspire. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial because the applicant's request to take the case off calendar was granted to allow her to develop her case under a recent *Ogilvie* decision. Additionally, the defendants were admonished for Broadspire's failure to disclose the identity of its client as required by *Coldiron v. Compuware Corp.* and were put on notice that sanctions could be considered at the trial level.

WCABRemovalBroadspireThird-party administratorColdironLabor Code section 3700SanctionsLabor Code section 5813Off calendarMandatory Settlement Conference
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacTaggart v. Gibbs & Cox. Inc.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute for over five years. The plaintiffs' primary excuse for the delay was their involvement in another litigation concerning similar issues. However, the court found that the issues in the two cases were not identical, and a significant period of a year and a half elapsed after the conclusion of the prior litigation without any further action on the present case. The court also considered the prejudice to the defendant, noting the difficulty and impracticability of recouping extra costs from clients related to contracts completed between February 1944 and December 1945. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action.

failure to prosecutedismissal of actionappellate reviewdiscretionary powerprejudice to defendantdelay in litigationstipulationsamended complaintnote of issueextra compensation
References
1
Case No. ADJ10309849
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

SALMANASAR MALDONADO vs. SELECT STAFFING SERVICES, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the temporary disability indemnity rate, reducing it from $421.50 to $241.50 per week. The Board affirmed the finding of temporary total disability from September 28, 2016, to December 8, 2016, based on the applicant's primary treating physician's reports. This decision upheld the original award despite defendant's contentions, as defendant failed to provide grounds for withdrawal from a prior stipulation. The Board also noted the defendant administrator's failure to disclose the client's identity could lead to sanctions.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityStipulation and OrderPrimary Treating PhysicianSurgeonIndemnity RateClerical ErrorSubstantial EvidenceWCJAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01713 [227 AD3d 36]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2024

Matter of Merrill

Anthony V. Merrill, an attorney, faced 11 charges of professional misconduct, including identity theft, commingling client funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to maintain proper records and file required statements with the Office of Court Administration. The Special Referee sustained all charges. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's report and suspended Merrill from the practice of law for 18 months, without credit for prior suspension time. Merrill's misconduct occurred during a period when he was suffering from an untreated compulsive gambling addiction, for which he has since sought treatment and maintained abstinence.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsClient fundsFiduciary duty breachIdentity theftRecord keeping violationsSuspension from practiceGambling addictionMitigating circumstancesAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Spitzer

Pavillion Agency, Inc., a domestic worker referral service, sought to quash or modify subpoenas issued by the Attorney General’s Office of the State of New York. The Attorney General launched an investigation into Pavillion's business practices, suspecting discrimination based on national origin, age, and marital status, violating human rights laws. Pavillion argued the subpoenas were procedurally flawed and that domestic servants are excluded from Human Rights Law coverage. The court denied the request to quash but granted a protective order to modify the subpoenas, preventing the disclosure of Pavillion's clients' identities while allowing the Attorney General to obtain other relevant business information for its investigation.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationSubpoenasProtective OrderDomestic Worker Referral ServiceAttorney General InvestigationClient ConfidentialityExecutive LawCivil Rights LawAdministrative Code
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 1995

People v. Mojica

This appellate case addresses whether a trial court deprived a criminal defendant of his right to counsel by issuing a protective order that temporarily prevented his attorney from revealing a witness's identity due to credible threats of intimidation. The defendant, convicted of multiple counts of murder and attempted murder in Bronx County, appealed this "gag order" and its alleged impact on his defense strategy. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the limited restriction on attorney-client communication was a reasonable and permissible exercise of discretion to ensure witness safety, especially given the defendant's history of threats and gang affiliation. The court found that the order did not prohibit all communication and allowed sufficient time for defense counsel to prepare once the witness was identified. However, the judgment was modified to correct a sentencing error, reducing the minimum terms for the attempted murder convictions from 12½ to 8⅓ years.

Right to CounselWitness IntimidationGag OrderProtective OrderAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureSentencing ErrorHomicideAttempted MurderHome Invasion
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrington & Favia, Inc. v. New York Typographical Union, Local 14156

The case concerns whether petitioner F & F, a successor corporation formed by John Farrington, is compelled to arbitrate a dispute with the Union under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to which its predecessor entities, Farrington & Favia, Inc. and Boro Typographers, Inc., were parties. F & F continued the same printing business, servicing the same clients with substantially the same workforce after Boro ceased operations. The Union demanded arbitration, which F & F resisted, seeking to stay it. Applying federal labor law principles, the Court found "substantial continuity of identity in the business enterprise" between F & F and its predecessors. Citing John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, the Court concluded that a change in corporate structure does not automatically remove the duty to arbitrate, especially where the successor is an "alter ego" or a "disguised continuance" of the old employer. Consequently, the Union's motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was granted, and F & F's cross-motion to stay arbitration was denied.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSuccessor LiabilityLabor LawCorporate StructureBusiness ContinuityAlter EgoSummary JudgmentFederal PolicyDispute Resolution
References
3
Case No. ADJ7636863
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

KARINE GABRIYELYAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SOCIAL SERVICES-IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained by a home care provider while transporting her client, who was experiencing a medical emergency, to the client's daughter's home on Christmas Eve. The applicant testified she acted out of concern for the client's well-being, not for personal reasons, and that the injury occurred when the client fell on her on the stairs. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petitioner's request for reconsideration, finding substantial evidence that the applicant's actions were within the course and scope of her employment and that their request for a continuance was improperly handled. The WCJ's credibility findings were given significant weight in the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJudge's ReportApplicant's OccupationHome Care ProviderDate of InjuryLumbar SpineCervical SpinePsycheSleep Disorder
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 423 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