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. ADJ552778 (LBO 0362055)
Regular
May 10, 2015

PROYLAND CAMARILLO HURTADO vs. APL LOGISTICS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to continue the trial date. The applicant wished to undergo further surgery and reevaluations to assess his final disability after an industrial injury to his back and knee. The Board found that these issues could be addressed by the trial judge on the scheduled trial date, who has the discretion to continue the matter if further discovery is deemed necessary. Therefore, the applicant's request to remove the case from the trial calendar was denied.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorWCJoff calendarrevaluationsfinal disabilityindustrial injuryforklift operatordriver
References
0
Case No. ADJ8061042
Regular
Feb 27, 2013

GREGORY GROVER vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the County of Sacramento challenging a WCJ's order continuing a trial date. The defendant argued that discovery remained incomplete and questioned the substantiality of a QME's report. However, the parties subsequently agreed to continue the trial to a new date. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot because the issues raised were rendered irrelevant by the new trial scheduling. The Board clarified that any discovery or evidentiary disputes should be addressed at the trial level.

Petition for RemovalWCJQMEorthopedic surgerysubstantial medical evidencemootdiscoveryDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedcontinuanceAppeals Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Orenstein

This is a class action brought by shareholders of Topper Corporation against the corporation and various defendants, including Arthur Young & Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws due to false and misleading financial information. Defendant Arthur Young & Company moved to quash the plaintiffs' jury demand, asserting the case's complexity rendered it unsuitable for a jury, and alternatively sought a single, continuous trial for liability and damages. The Court, presided over by District Judge Bonsal, recognized the plaintiffs' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Consequently, the Court denied Arthur Young's motion to quash the jury demand, concluding that the case, estimated to last six to eight weeks, was within a jury's capabilities. Additionally, the motion to mandate a continuous trial was denied, with the Court leaving open the possibility of bifurcating the trial on liability and damages at a later stage if needed.

Securities FraudClass ActionJury TrialFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSeventh AmendmentDue DiligenceFinancial MisrepresentationAuditing ProceduresUnderwriting ProceduresTrial Bifurcation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. ADJ4257489 (VNO 0545109) ADJ1819339 (VNO 0545111)
Regular
Apr 27, 2009

LUZ GALARZA vs. ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN CARE OF BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought these actions after the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) continued the trial to await a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (Panel QME) chiropractic report. The defendant argued prejudice and due process violations regarding a psychiatric evaluation, but the Board found no final order was issued and no substantial prejudice warranted removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's interlocutory procedural order allowing discovery to continue and found no error in the continuation of the trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorChiropracticsPsychiatric EvaluationInterlocutory Procedural OrdersSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
7
Case No. ADJ736188 (GOL 0099658)
Regular
Sep 22, 2017

Deanna Power vs. St. John's Regional Medical Center, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns Deanna Power's claim for continued medical treatment, specifically prescription medications Xyrem and Lunesta, for a previous industrial injury. The employer denied authorization for these medications through Utilization Review (UR), and the applicant's subsequent Independent Medical Review (IMR) application was deemed untimely. The trial judge initially ordered continued treatment and directed the Administrative Director to process the IMR appeal, finding it timely. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to order treatment when a timely UR decision was issued and the applicant's sole recourse was the IMR process. The matter was returned to the trial level for a determination solely on the timeliness of the IMR appeal, not the medical necessity of the medications.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardXyremLunestaIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewURprescription medications
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Nosov

Defendants Vasiliy Ermichine and Alexander Nosov moved for a new trial following their convictions for racketeering, kidnapping, and murder-in-aid-of-racketeering charges. They argued that their Sixth Amendment rights were violated by improper limits on cross-examination of a cooperating witness, Alexander Spitchenko, regarding a pornographic scheme, and by the court's ex parte communications with jurors. The court denied the motion, ruling that the cross-examination was appropriately limited under Rules 608(b) and 403 F.R. Evid., as ample other evidence was available to assess the witness's credibility. The court also found that while the ex parte communications with jurors were not ideal, they constituted harmless error, as they focused on the deliberation process to resolve perceived intimidation rather than influencing the verdict's substance. The jury's continued deliberation for almost two days after the communications further supported the finding of no coercion or prejudice.

Criminal ProcedureMotion for New TrialCross-Examination LimitsWitness ImpeachmentRule 608(b) Federal Rules of EvidenceRule 403 Federal Rules of EvidenceEx Parte CommunicationsJuror MisconductJury DeliberationsHarmless Error Doctrine
References
24
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vodopia v. Rider

The court reviewed an order granting the examination of defendant Joseph Flynn before trial. The order was modified in two key areas. Firstly, item (b) of the first ordering paragraph was amended to specify the defendants' actions related to removing the plaintiff's employees from work on contracts around May 18, 1936, and the subsequent refusal to allow union members to continue work. Secondly, the second ordering paragraph was modified to direct Joseph Flynn to produce all relevant records, minute books, and documents pertaining to the removal of workmen or work suspension on plaintiff's contracts in May 1936 at the Coney Island Sewage Treatment Plant, and any acts preventing union employment. As modified, the order was affirmed without costs by Justices Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, and Close.

Examination Before TrialPre-trial DiscoveryOrder ModificationAffirmed OrderLabor DisputeEmployee RemovalWork StoppageRecord ProductionUnion EmploymentContract Disputes
References
0
Case No. ADJ7719607
Regular
Jul 27, 2012

STEVE WEDDLE vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the judge's order to take the case off calendar. The applicant's attorney declared readiness for trial and completed discovery, then unsuccessfully sought to continue the trial to develop the record. The Board found the judge abused discretion by ordering further discovery without trial or evidence submission. The case is returned for trial, with the judge retaining discretion to order record development post-trial if necessary.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDiscovery ClosureMedical Record DevelopmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMcDuffie v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityWCJ DiscretionTrial Readiness
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,462 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