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. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ9767744
Regular
Jun 10, 2016

ROSA AGUIRRE vs. DAVID MARLEY, ORLY MARLEY, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's challenge to the replacement of a chiropractic QME panel with an orthopedic one. The applicant argued that the regulation allowing this replacement conflicted with the Labor Code. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the challenged order was not a final one. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the petition for removal on the merits, finding no conflict between the regulation and the Labor Code.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical DirectorQME Regulation 31.1(b)QME Regulation 31.5(a)(10)Labor Code section 4062.2Final OrderInterim Order
References
10
Case No. ADJ3751392
Regular
Sep 02, 2017

SANTIAGO FLORES vs. OC COMPLETE PERSONNEL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that applicant Santiago Flores sustained an industrial back injury in 2003 and that the claim was contested until 2014. The defendant argued the claim was accepted, not contested, and that a regulation defining a contested claim based on disputed medical facts conflicted with the Labor Code. The Board affirmed the finding, concluding the regulation correctly interpreted the Labor Code by including disputed medical facts as a basis for a contested claim.

Contested claimPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor CodeWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryMedical-legal expensesDisputed medical fact
References
3
Case No. VNO 0409413
Regular
Jul 18, 2008

LINDA SALVANERA vs. KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICES, CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and issued a notice of intent to sanction defense attorney Ian D. Paige for attaching previously presented or record documents to his petition for reconsideration without alleging newly discovered evidence. This action violated WCAB regulations and is considered a sanctionable bad-faith tactic under Labor Code §5813 for willful failure to comply with regulatory obligations. The Board intends to impose a $200 sanction unless the attorney demonstrates good cause to the contrary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Bad Faith ActionsRegulatory ViolationIan D. PaigeStockwell Harris Widom Woolverton & MuehlDue ProcessNotice of Intention
References
11
Case No. ADJ7191043
Regular
Jan 28, 2013

LORETTA LAMB vs. CENTER POINT, INC.; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Basso Pharmacy's Petition for Reconsideration due to multiple procedural defects. The petition was unverified, failing to meet Labor Code section 5902 requirements, and lacked proof of service on the parties as mandated by regulations. Additionally, the petition was deemed "skeletal" for failing to provide specific legal basis or record references, violating California Code of Regulations section 10846. The Board noted that the lien claimant was properly on the Official Address Record and would have denied the petition on the merits.

Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationDismissalUnverified petitionProof of serviceSkeletal petitionLabor Code section 5902California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10850WCJ ReportOfficial Address Record
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1996

City of New York v. Job-Lot Pushcart

This case addresses whether New York City's Administrative Code § 10-131 (g), which imposes strict regulations on the sale and use of toy guns, is preempted by the 1988 Federal Toy Gun Law (15 USC § 5001). The City initiated an action against defendants, including JA-RU, Inc., for distributing toy guns that violated the local ordinance's color, trade name, and barrel plug requirements. Defendants argued that the Federal law, which sets its own marking standards, preempted the City's stricter regulations. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' denial of preemption, ruling that Congress did not intend to expressly or impliedly preempt all local regulation of toy gun markings. The Court found that the Federal law's preemption clause is limited, and that compliance with both Federal and City regulations is possible and aligns with the public safety objectives of both statutes, as the City's law is not inconsistent with the Federal statute.

PreemptionFederal LawLocal LawToy GunsAdministrative CodePublic SafetyStatutory InterpretationSupremacy ClausePolice PowersNew York City
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Petitioners, the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA) and Richard McPhillips, challenged an emergency regulation by the Office of Mental Health (OMH) that mandated unvaccinated personnel in psychiatric facilities wear face masks during influenza season, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division determined the case was not moot, as the subsequently adopted permanent regulation presented the same alleged infirmities. On the merits, the court upheld the regulation, granting OMH significant judicial deference due to its expertise. OMH's decision was based on Department of Health expertise, its own assessment of patient vulnerability, and the efficacy of masks. The court found that OMH adequately addressed concerns regarding communication and role modeling, and reasonably justified exemptions for visitors and attorneys. The judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed.

RegulationsPublic HealthMandatory MasksInfluenzaPsychiatric FacilitiesWorkers' RightsAdministrative LawJudicial DeferenceMootnessCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. 13 NY3d 880
Regular Panel Decision

Nostrom v. A.W Chesterton Co.

The case addresses whether vicarious liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) can be based solely on violations of Industrial Code part 12 regulations. Decedent Donald Nostrom, a boilermaker, contracted mesothelioma from asbestos exposure on construction projects owned by Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., with Sequoia Ventures, Inc. as a general contractor. Nostrom and his wife sued, alleging Labor Law § 241 (6) violations predicated on part 12 regulations concerning air contaminants. Both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division dismissed the claim, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that part 12 regulations do not provide a basis for vicarious liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) unless specifically incorporated into part 23, citing the language and regulatory history of both parts.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code Part 12Industrial Code Part 23Vicarious LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaConstruction ProjectsGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desmond-Americana v. Jorling

This case involves five CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, which mandated multiple pesticide notification devices. The petitioners challenged these regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, arguing the Commissioner exceeded his authority and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with statutory procedures. The Appellate Court found two main issues: first, DEC failed to adhere to the mandatory time limits for filing regulations under the State Administrative Procedure Act, rendering the amendments ineffective. Second, DEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing negative declarations without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), despite clear evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Consequently, the court annulled all amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, declaring them invalid.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawRegulatory ComplianceStatutory InterpretationState Administrative Procedure ActState Environmental Quality Review ActEnvironmental Impact StatementPesticide RegulationsIntegrated Pest ManagementAnnulment of Regulations
References
10
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,217 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