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. ADJ7390255
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

DARNELLA SCOTT STREET vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision allowing a lien claim for an H-Wave machine. The applicant found more relief with the H-Wave than a TENS unit. The Agreed Medical Examiner opined that while not convinced the H-Wave was superior to other inferential stimulation units, it was superior to a TENS unit. The WCAB found the lien claimant met its burden of proof regarding the medical necessity of the H-Wave.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictAthens AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgesubstantial evidenceElectronic Waveform LabsH-WaveTENS unitinferential stimulation unit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area School District

The case is a Decision and Order regarding attorney's fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Plaintiffs, Aaron Sabatini and his mother Sharon Sabatini, successfully sought attorney's fees after securing a preliminary injunction for Aaron's placement at Mitchell College and reaching a settlement with the Corning-Painted Post Area School District. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer in the Western District of New York, addressed disputes over hourly rates, defining the relevant "community," and determining when plaintiffs became "prevailing parties." It found the requested hourly rates reasonable, especially given the specialized nature of special education law and the attorneys' expertise. While applying a 15% reduction for duplicative efforts and vague entries, the court awarded plaintiffs $49,730.65 in attorney's fees and costs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Attorney's FeesPrevailing PartyLodestar MethodReasonable Hourly RatesWestern District of New YorkSpecial Education LawSettlement AgreementImpartial Hearing Officer (IHO)Preliminary Injunction
References
40
Case No. ADJ7937794
Regular
Sep 25, 2012

RUTH CORONA vs. AUTUMN YEARS AT OJAI, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ruth Corona's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The denial was based on a faulty verification in the petition and a credibility assessment of the applicant's testimony regarding a specific injury. The ALJ found the applicant's account of a specific injury to be inconsistent and not supported by evidence, suggesting a cumulative trauma injury instead. The Board gave great weight to the ALJ's credibility findings and incorporated the ALJ's report into their order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportCredibility FindingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Petitioners' ContentionApplicant's TestimonyDefendant's WitnessesProcedural Error
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balsam Lake Anglers Club v. Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioner, Balsam Lake Anglers Club, initiated a hybrid proceeding challenging a Unit Management Plan (UMP) for the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area. The challenge focused on alleged violations of Article XIV of the New York State Constitution concerning timber removal, infringement on easements, and non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court determined that the UMP did not violate the State Constitution or the petitioner's property rights as the timber cutting was deemed insubstantial and consistent with public use. However, the court found that the respondents, particularly the Department of Environmental Conservation, failed to adhere to SEQRA's procedural and substantive requirements by issuing a negative declaration without a comprehensive 'hard look' or a reasoned elaboration of environmental impacts. Consequently, the petition was granted in part regarding the SEQRA violation, and the matter was remitted to the Department of Environmental Conservation for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

Environmental LawSEQRAUnit Management PlanForest PreserveArticle XIVNew York State ConstitutionTimber CuttingEasementsWild Forest LandsJudicial Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith Ex Rel. New York Metro Area Postal Union v. Potter

Plaintiffs, including William M. Smith and the New York Metro Area Postal Union, sued John E. Potter, Post Master General of the United States (USPS), following anthrax contamination at the Morgan Processing and Distribution Center. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and New York State environmental laws due to the USPS's handling of the contamination and sought injunctive relief. The USPS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while the plaintiffs moved to compel inspection. The Court had previously denied a preliminary injunction, finding no imminent and substantial risk. In this decision, the Court ruled that the USPS's cleanup efforts constituted a removal action under CERCLA Section 104, and therefore, under CERCLA Section 113(h) and RCRA Section 6972(b)(2)(B)(ii), the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to ongoing CERCLA removal actions. Consequently, the Court granted the USPS's motion to dismiss the entire complaint and denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel inspection as moot.

Anthrax ContaminationCERCLA Removal ActionRCRA Citizen SuitSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissEnvironmental LawHazardous WastePreliminary InjunctionPostal FacilityJudicial Review Bar
References
19
Case No. ADJ9770624; ADJ10440533
Regular
Jun 09, 2025

SUMUDU JAYASURIYA vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant, Sumudu Jayasuriya, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from March 7, 2025, concerning a low back injury sustained in 2014 while employed by San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The WCJ had found 16% permanent disability and entitlement to further medical treatment. The applicant contended that Dr. Holmes's medical reporting was not substantial evidence, the WCJ failed to consider his post-trial briefs, and defendant's attorney engaged in misconduct. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Holmes's report as substantial medical evidence, affirming the WCJ's decision regarding post-trial briefs, and finding no basis for the alleged attorney misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTrain Control Electronic TechnicianLow Back InjuryTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityStipulations with Request for AwardNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical Examiner
References
10
Case No. ADJ10829802
Regular
Apr 26, 2019

Antonio Corona vs. Custom Pipe & Coupling Company, Inc., The Hartford, Insurance Company of the West

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify findings regarding applicant Antonio Corona's industrial injury. The Board substituted new findings, confirming injury to his thoracic spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, and left knee, and held the claim was not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board awarded temporary total disability from April 25, 2017, through June 8, 2017, and permanent disability at 18%, returning the matter to the trial level to resolve issues of average weekly wage, additional temporary disability periods, and an EDD lien. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, particularly regarding the credibility of the applicant's treating physician and the absence of substantial evidence to support the defense's arguments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardMachine OperatorThoracic Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryBilateral Wrists InjuryBilateral Hands InjuryLeft Knee Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ7438047
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

FRANCISCO CORONA-DIAZ vs. MENDOCINO FOREST PRODUCTS COMPANY, XI SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARGO INSURANCE COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Francisco Corona-Diaz, filed a Petition for Reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed untimely. The original Findings and Orders were issued on April 30, 2012, and the petition was not filed within the statutory 20-day period, plus an additional 5 days for mailing. Therefore, the petition was procedurally deficient and dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationFindings and OrdersLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMendocino Forest Products Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ8002816, ADJ8316468
Regular
Oct 05, 2016

LORENZO TOSCANO CORONA vs. KOOSHAREM, doing business as SELECT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ULLICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, RSI HOME PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over workers' compensation coverage where applicant Lorenzo Toscano Corona was injured, allegedly while employed through a staff leasing arrangement between Koosharem (Select Staffing) and RSI Home Products. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address arguments by ACE American Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company that their policies excluded coverage for the applicant. The Board rescinded the prior decision due to the arbitrator's failure to adequately document the proceedings and admitted exhibits as required by law. The matter is returned to the arbitrator to create a proper record and evaluate whether ACE and Travelers' policies contained valid exclusions for the applicant's injuries, considering relevant insurance code provisions and endorsements.

Staff leasingGeneral employerSpecial employerJoint and several liabilityOther insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Hold harmless clauseWCAB Rule 10566Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp.Labor Code section 3602(d)
References
6
Case No. 535483
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Jaime Espinoza

Claimant, a safety manager, was injured in a parking area adjacent to his construction site after his shift while pulling a gate, sustaining a bicep and rotator cuff injury. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the parking area was not part of the job site or controlled by the employer. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that claimant's uncontradicted testimony established he was instructed to park in that area and that construction materials were stored there, creating a sufficient nexus between the construction site and the parking area to extend the employment premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentParking Area InjuryPremises DoctrineArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentConstruction SiteEmployer ControlNexusRemittal
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 326 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