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

Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund

This case involves Refined Sugars, Inc. (RSI) challenging a withdrawal liability claim brought by the Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund and its Board of Trustees under ERISA and MPPAA. RSI filed for a declaratory judgment, arguing it was not an 'employer' subject to such liability. The court analyzed the definition of 'employer' under ERISA Title IV and Title I, concluding that RSI did not meet the criteria, particularly regarding common control with the direct employer, Francrete Corporation. Additionally, the court rejected the application of common law criteria and the joint employer theory. Consequently, RSI's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion was denied, finding RSI not liable for withdrawal contributions.

ERISAMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityMulti-employer Pension PlanSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionCommon ControlIndependent ContractorJoint EmployerPension Fund
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cantwell v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services of United States

Margaret Cantwell sought judicial review of a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which denied her application for disability insurance benefits. Cantwell, born in 1930 and with a background in the insurance industry, alleged disability commencing in July 1982 due to arthritis, chest pains, high blood pressure, headaches, and nervousness. An Administrative Law Judge found her not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council on March 4, 1985. However, the court noted that the Appeals Council's approval occurred after the enactment of the Social Security Disability Benefits Act of 1984, which established a moratorium on mental impairment reviews and mandated the application of revised criteria. Considering Cantwell's mental and emotional condition, the court remanded the case to the Secretary with instructions to redetermine her disability application using the revised criteria for mental impairments.

disability benefitssocial security actmental impairmentremandadministrative law judgeappeals councilsocial security disability benefits act of 1984revised criteriasubstantial evidencemedical evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 1985

Coxen v. Meyer

The plaintiffs, individuals on civil service lists for engineering roles, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Suffolk County and John J. Kassner & Co., Inc. They challenged the county's practice of using private contractors, specifically Kassner, for inspection and supervision of the Southwest Sewer District project, arguing it violated New York Constitution, article V, § 6, which mandates competitive examinations for civil service appointments. Previously, the county had terminated a contract with Bowe, Walsh Associates and temporarily hired its employees, leading to an earlier CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court affirmed that engaging private contractors for large, transient public works projects, like the sewer district, does not violate the constitutional civil service mandate, provided specific criteria for contractor independence are met. The court found that the contract with Kassner satisfied these criteria, thus granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

Civil ServicePublic ContractsEngineering ServicesDeclaratory Judgment ActionNew York ConstitutionArticle V Section 6Government OutsourcingSuffolk CountyPublic Works ProjectTemporary Employment
References
14
Case No. ADJ1933815
Regular
Dec 06, 2011

DENISE LINDSTROM vs. QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, INC., FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order regarding procedural matters, not a substantive right or liability. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The petition did not meet the criteria for reconsideration or removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
7
Case No. ADJ3570998 (AHM 0132124)
Regular
Jun 21, 2013

MARCOS MEZA vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the rule that reconsideration is only permissible from a "final" order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. The Board found the challenged order to be interlocutory and procedural, not a final determination. Therefore, it did not meet the criteria for a valid petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLab. CodeRymer v. HaglerKaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCABMaranian v. WCAB
References
9
Case No. ADJ9089881 ADJ9089883
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

CATHERINE MAHONEY vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be inadequate. The WCAB found the applicant failed to meet these stringent criteria, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ12795046
Regular
Mar 04, 2025

VICENTE SIXTO vs. LANGE TWINS, INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal filed by the petitioner. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's analysis, the Board was not persuaded that these criteria were met, thus upholding the denial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyextraordinary remedyADJ12795046Lange Twins
References
3
Case No. ADJ538435 (MON 0345302), ADJ3708963 (MON 0345303)
Regular
Dec 19, 2016

MARIA MANCILLAS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; SEDGWICK CLAIM MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maria Mancillas' Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and where reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The Board found that Mancillas failed to demonstrate these criteria, adopting the reasoning of the Workers' Compensation Judge. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyAdverse DecisionDenial of RemovalCourt of Appeal Cases
References
2
Case No. LAO 0849504
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

JOHN CHANDLER vs. LOBSTER SPORTS, INC., EMPLOYERS COMP. INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal because it was based on a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, not an actual dismissal, and thus did not meet the criteria for significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the WCJ had not yet acted on the notice or the applicant's objection. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the dismissal.

Petition for RemovalNotice of Intention to DismissApplicant's Failure to AppearGood CauseSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTrial LevelStatus Conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ11088940
Regular
Jun 26, 2025

MARTIN HERRERA vs. B T MANCINI CO INC, BITCO/OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO., ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Removal, along with the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge. The Board denied the petition, reiterating that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when there is substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or if reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. The Board concluded that these criteria were not met, affirming the WCJ's analysis of the petitioner's arguments.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportADJ11088940BT Mancini Co IncBitco Old RepublicESIS Inc
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 166 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