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

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1991

Bonilla v. New York City Civil Service Commission

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenged a determination disqualifying him from a civil service eligible list for a sanitation worker position due to a psychiatric disorder. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to commence the proceeding before the eligible list expired. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, relying on established case law such as Matter of Deas v Levitt, which mandates dismissal if a challenge to an eligible list determination is not initiated prior to the list's expiration. This ruling emphasizes the procedural requirement for timely legal action concerning civil service eligible lists.

Civil Service LawEligible ListDisqualificationPsychiatric DisorderNervous BreakdownTimeliness of PetitionExpiration of Eligible ListProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. BGN 63300; BGN 63301 BGN 63302; BGN 63303
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

HARDISTENE HOWARD vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, RTD; TRAVELERS

The applicant filed a "Petition the Court for Judge Dismissal" alleging a violation of Labor Code section 5312 by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board treated this as a petition for disqualification, but dismissed it because it lacked the required affidavit of disqualification and did not state grounds for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311Petition for removalLabor Code section 5310WCAB Rule 10452Mandatory settlement conferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnrepresented applicantProof of service
References
0
Case No. ADJ7030286, ADJ7222855
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

DEBORAH STANFIELD HALL vs. OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant attempted to disqualify the judge after a trial where witnesses testified, claiming the judge was disrespectful and showed favoritism. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, finding it untimely because it was filed after the swearing of the first witness. Additionally, the petition lacked the required affidavit supporting the disqualification grounds and did not specify any grounds under Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and dismissed it.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCJ RadosPetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10452affidavit or declarationpenalty of perjuryswearing of the first witnessindustrial injuriescustomer service clerk
References
0
Case No. ADJ6905239
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ROBERT GARRISON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The applicant filed a petition seeking to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, along with the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that the petition did not establish valid grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing that expressions of opinion in official duties or erroneous rulings do not constitute bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionState of Mind Evincing EnmityWCAB Rule 10960Affidavit or DeclarationTimely Filing
References
10
Case No. ADJ18267667
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

ANA ORDAZ DE AMAYA vs. INTERSTATE MEAT CO., INC., COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Disqualification against WCJ Tammy Homen, upholding her report. The Board found the petition lacked specific factual allegations required by Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. It emphasized that a WCJ's opinions or rulings, made in official duties and based on evidence, do not establish bias for disqualification. The WCJ's report indicated the petitioner's attorney, Albert Andrew Navarra, objected to an in-person appearance rather than demonstrating grounds for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Rule 10960WCJbiasenmityunqualified opinionaffidavitdeclaration under penalty of perjury
References
11
Case No. ADJ9709184
Regular
Mar 12, 2025

JOHN GUY vs. AV DECKING, AIG CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Disqualification against a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification based on an unqualified opinion or bias. After reviewing the WCJ's report, the Board determined that the petition did not provide sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish the grounds for disqualification as per Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Additionally, a Compromise and Release had been approved, rendering the petition moot. Consequently, the Petition for Disqualification was denied by the Board.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641affidavitdeclarationprejudicebiasunqualified opinionevidence
References
13
Case No. ADJ2275429 (VNO 0463950)
Regular
Mar 05, 2025

VINCENT DOWNEY vs. TECHNICOLOR, INC.; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; TECHNICOLOR FILM SERVICES; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DELUXE LABORATORIES; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as successive, finding it reiterated previously raised issues without presenting new evidence. Additionally, the Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Disqualification against the Workers' Compensation Judge, citing untimeliness and a lack of sufficient factual allegations to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. The decision emphasizes that prior adverse rulings or expressions of opinion based on evidence do not constitute bias for disqualification.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationLien ClaimantLabor Code section 5909EAMSWCJ ReportCode of Civil Procedure section 641WCAB Rule 10960Successive Petition
References
19
Case No. ADJ14178627
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

ELISANDRO CAMPOS vs. PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Elisandro Campos's petition to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the petition lacked specific facts, under penalty of perjury, to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Legal precedent dictates that conclusory allegations or subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient, and judicial expressions of opinion based on evidence do not constitute grounds for disqualification. The Board also admonished the applicant for filing duplicative and potentially frivolous pleadings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationWCJdisqualification groundsCode of Civil Procedure section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10960affidavit
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,782 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