Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ2165521

Regular

Mar 26, 2009

RICHARD HADDAD vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, REMIF

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denies the Petition for Removal filed by Richard Haddad, the applicant, against the County of Sonoma and REMIF. The WCAB adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge and found no basis to grant removal. Therefore, the petition was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalDENIEDCOUNTY OF SONOMAREMIFADJ2165521SRO 0128011ADJ128765SFO 0490343administrative law judge

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance

References

Case No. ADJ6461450

Regular

Apr 23, 2012

ANDREW HADDAD vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BERKLEY SPECIALTY

This case involves a notice of intention to issue sanctions against applicant's attorney, Christopher Ginocchio, and his firm, Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio, under Labor Code section 5813. The sanctions are proposed due to the attorney's alleged bad-faith actions in his answer to the defendant's petition for reconsideration. Specifically, the attorney cited a deposition transcript not in evidence and failed to comply with evidence citation rules. The Board intends to impose a $500 sanction unless good cause is shown within 15 days.

Labor Code section 5813California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10561bad-faith actionsfrivolousunnecessary delaydeposition transcript not in evidenceRule 10842evidentiary statementsspecific references to the recordexhibit number

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

RICHARD HADDAD vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, REMIF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalDENIEDCOUNTY OF SONOMAREMIFADJ2165521SRO 0128011ADJ128765SFO 0490343administrative law judge

Haddad v. City of Albany

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance

ANDREW HADDAD vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BERKLEY SPECIALTY