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. ADJ277813 (SAC 0359011)
Regular
Feb 24, 2011

JACINTO BECERRA vs. JOHN LITZO dba LAKE CHAPALA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning a WCJ's order that reopened discovery for an absent, potentially uninsured employer. The Board found that continuing discovery beyond the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) violated Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) absent good cause. The hearing scheduled for March 7, 2011, was redesignated as an MSC, and the case was returned to the trial level. If the employer fails to appear at this new MSC, discovery will close, and any subsequent evidence offered will be inadmissible without a showing of due diligence.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)Discovery closingDue process rightsIllegally uninsuredUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundIndustrial injuryLow backLegs
References
1
Case No. ADJ4639631 (MON 0327478)
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

MARY JONES vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK, CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that the judge improperly continued the case to trial after a status conference without defendant's agreement. The Board rescinded the judge's order, stating that a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) is required after a status conference unless parties agree otherwise. The case is returned for further proceedings, including setting a new MSC, with discovery remaining open to allow the defendant to complete its investigation.

Petition for RemovalWCJStatus ConferenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryOff CalendarLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)WCAB Rule 10301(dd)Pretrial Conference StatementDeclarations of Readiness to Proceed
References
2
Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549) ADJ8009553 ADJ9161073
Regular
Mar 25, 2016

MARY LOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to overturn a Minute Order that merely continued the case to a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC), arguing it would cause prejudice. The WCAB found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal, and a continuance of a non-final order is not grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the WCAB admonished the defendant for delaying proceedings with these unsuccessful petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMinute OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDismissedDeniedSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmFinal OrderNon-final Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ1718273 (SFO 0464362)
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

MARIANNE WALSH vs. G.A. WRIGHT, INC., CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the record was complete for trial. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding the prior order to continue to a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) was premature. The Board rescinded that order and returned the case to the trial level for an MSC to file a Pretrial Conference Statement, as discovery had closed. The applicant must now attend MSCs and trial in person to facilitate these necessary procedural steps.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Discovery ClosureIndustrial InjuryOverexertion at high altitudeChest wall injuryLung injuryHeart injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7798777; ADJ7772822
Regular
Mar 07, 2016

MARTHA MUNOZ vs. ACCENTCARE, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for removal filed by the defendant, Accentcare, Inc., and its insurer. The defendant sought removal of an order continuing a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) to allow for further discovery, arguing it caused prejudice. The WCAB found that continuances of MSCs are within the judge's discretion and that the order did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, thus removal was not warranted. The WCAB also noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if issues regarding discovery persisted.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceContinued MSCSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ DiscretionDiscovery IssuesBad Faith AllegationsSanctionsLabor Code Section 5310
References
4
Case No. ADJ8519763, ADJ8527545
Regular
Oct 28, 2014

SYLVIA KRESS vs. DALLCO, INC. and PROSIGHT GLOBAL, INC.

Defendant Prosight Global, Inc. petitioned for removal, challenging an order continuing a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) to address Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) replacement and medical record issues. Subsequent to the petition, the parties successfully resolved the QME dispute by agreeing to use an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) and withdrew the QME replacement request at a later MSC. This resolution rendered the defendant's petition moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as the underlying issues were resolved by the parties.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAgreed Medical ExaminerMootDismissedProsight GlobalDallcoLWP Claims Solutions
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1954

Peters v. New York City Housing Authority

The court granted the motion concerning the continued occupancy rights of the tenants. This decision affects the ongoing residency of individuals currently living in the property. Furthermore, an associated appeal has been formally scheduled to be heard and argued before the Court of Appeals. This hearing is slated to occur during its session in May of 1954.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pre' Catelan, Inc. v. International Federation of Workers

The plaintiff, a restaurant business operating an 'open shop' called Pre’ Catelan, sought an injunction against striking workers and their union. The strike, initiated without warning, involved picketing and alleged acts of violence, intimidation, and assault against employees and patrons, resulting in severe injuries to some workers. The defendants denied these charges, claiming peaceful picketing and attributing any disturbances to strangers, arguing the strike was due to the plaintiff's intention to destroy the union. The court, citing established principles regarding lawful picketing and the protection of workers' rights, found that the presented proof established aggravated assaults and threats. Consequently, the motion to continue the injunction pendente lite was granted.

StrikePicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeViolenceIntimidationAssaultThreatsOpen ShopClosed Shop
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jabril P.

The case concerns a proceeding under New York State Social Services Law § 392 to determine whether three children should remain in foster care. This court was directed by the Appellate Division, First Department, to provide findings after reversing previous orders to discharge the children to their parents. A new hearing in 1980 found the father unfit due to his demanding nature and inability to understand the children's needs. The mother, while in remission from prior issues, remained questionable in her ability to cope with the stress of the children's return, especially given the father's attitude and the return of an older son from prison. The court, balancing parental rights with the children's best interests, granted the agency's petition for continued foster care until March 1, 1981, imposing several conditions on the parents and the agency.

Foster CareParental RightsSocial Services LawChild WelfareFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate DivisionUnfitnessPsychiatric TreatmentVisitation
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02787 [138 AD3d 797]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2016

Mileski v. MSC Indus. Direct Co., Inc.

Drena Mileski, as administratrix of Ronald P. Mileski's estate, initiated a wrongful death action following Ronald's death from injuries sustained operating a lathe machine. The plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to include Burns Real Estate, LLC, Nijon Tool Co., Inc., Island Machine Supply Corp., and John Raymond Burns as additional defendants, relying on the relation-back doctrine. The Supreme Court granted this amendment. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the relation-back doctrine was inapplicable. The court reasoned that if the new defendants were united in interest with the employer, they would share the employer's immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law, rendering the claims time-barred.

Wrongful DeathLathe AccidentRelation-Back DoctrineStatute of LimitationsAmended ComplaintVicarious LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealUnity of Interest
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,372 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