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. ADJ1620559 (ANA 0373462)
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

Wayne Johnson vs. Tennant Company, Sentry Claims Service

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering applicant's counsel, defense counsel, and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide sworn declarations regarding an alleged ex parte communication. This communication apparently led the WCJ to vacate a prior submission order, citing the applicant's upcoming surgery and a utilization review denial resolution. The defendant seeks removal, claiming the WCJ improperly obtained this information. The WCAB is also ordering all future correspondence be directed to the Commissioners.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDecision after ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpineRight Lower ExtremityPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ9393235
Regular
Jan 17, 2018

MARIA FLORES TORRES vs. AMERICAN BUILDING JANITORIAL, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision finding a medical lien invalid due to an issue with the declarant's competency. The Board found that the initial declaration under penalty of perjury, while conforming to statutory language, was deemed invalid by the trial judge solely because the declarant was not an employee of the lien claimant. However, the Board determined the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish the declarant's incompetence and that the defendant did not adequately demonstrate their efforts to present this witness at trial. Therefore, the case is remanded for further proceedings to address the admissibility of an amended declaration and to properly litigate the declarant's competency and its impact on the lien's validity.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONLIEN CLAIMANTLABOR CODE SECTION 4903.8DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURYSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONSADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGECOMPROMISE AND RELEASECOMPLIANCECOMPETENT TO TESTIFY
References
4
Case No. ADJ8182087
Regular
Jan 18, 2018

Darin Day vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision allowing a medical lien by VQ Orthocare against the City of Los Angeles. The Board found VQ's lien was valid despite late filing of a required declaration, as the lien was filed before the relevant statute's effective date. Defendant's arguments regarding the timeliness and form of the declaration were rejected, with the Board noting compliance with procedural rules for electronic filing and declarations under penalty of perjury. The lien was thus permitted to proceed on its merits.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)Declaration requirementLien validityStatute of limitationsReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical treatment lienSB 863SB 1160Declaration of readiness
References
11
Case No. ADJ9584373
Regular
Apr 23, 2018

FRITCHJOFF GILBERTSON vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred in placing the burden of proof on the lien claimant. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case to the trial level. The Board concluded that a declaration made under penalty of perjury is prima facie evidence, and the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the declaration false. Therefore, the case requires further proceedings to address other lien claim issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and NoticeLabor Code Section 4903.05(c)DeclarationIndependent Bill Review (IBR)Medical Provider Network (MPN)WCJ
References
8
Case No. ADJ7505380
Regular
Dec 31, 2013

MARIA ARANGURE vs. SUDA, INC.; THE HARTFORD

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Removal and denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Landmark Medical Management on behalf of lien claimant MedRx Funding. MedRx Funding was sanctioned by the WCJ for failing to pay a lien activation fee, filing a Declaration of Readiness prematurely while the underlying case was unresolved, and filing a false declaration under penalty of perjury. While an injunction temporarily impacted the sanction for the activation fee, the Board found the other actions egregious enough to uphold the sanctions. The Board clarified that the proper procedural remedy for the sanctions order was reconsideration, not removal.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLien ClaimantLandmark Medical ManagementMedRx FundingLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 4903.06Declaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
1
Case No. ADJ1631052 (ANA 0405611)
Regular
Oct 29, 2019

LUISA ISABEL RODRIGUEZ vs. KELLY SERVICES

This case concerns Kelly Services' challenge to lien claims filed by Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center and Technical Surgery Support. Kelly Services argued that the lien claimants' declarations, signed by Patrick Christoff, were untimely and that Mr. Christoff lacked personal knowledge of the services billed. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, ruling that the timeliness issue was waived as it was not raised at trial. The Board found Mr. Christoff competent to sign the declarations, relying on his extensive experience reviewing medical reports and billing, and the fact that the underlying medical reports were also signed under penalty of perjury.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)declarant competencypersonal knowledgelien claimantsKelly ServicesESISComprehensive Outpatient Surgery CenterTechnical Surgery SupportFindings of FactReconsideration
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watch Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Town Board

The Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh proposed constructing a 1,000,000-gallon water tank and, acting as lead agency under SEQRA, designated it a "Type I" action. Despite identifying "potential large impacts" on the environment, the Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the issuance of the negative declaration as arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the Town Board failed to provide a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, especially regarding the project's aesthetic impacts, which it deemed insufficient to justify a negative declaration. Consequently, the court annulled the Town Board's determination, granted the petition, and declared Resolution No. 93-46 and all subsequent construction authorizations invalid.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Water Storage TankTown BoardGreenburghAesthetic ImpactEnvironmental AssessmentType I Action
References
11
Case No. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
0
Case No. ADJ11447249; ADJ11447255
Regular
Dec 07, 2020

IDALIA PEREZ vs. FOREVER 21, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

This case involves Idalia Perez's petitions for removal and disqualification against Forever 21 and its insurer, Ace American Insurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions. The Board found that Perez failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Regarding disqualification, the Board determined the petition was untimely and lacked sufficient factual basis, specific allegations of bias, or a declaration under penalty of perjury as required by statute.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJJudicial DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,752 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