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

Cox v. Don's Welding Service, Inc.

A construction worker, John J. Stachera, died on April 17, 1972, after being struck by a defective metal boom. His estate sued Don's Welding Service, Inc. for negligence, breach of warranty, and wrongful death, alleging the boom was improperly welded. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint at the close of proof, as well as Don's Welding Service's cross-claim against the third-party defendant, Depew Paving Co., Inc. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed, especially given the lower burden of proof in wrongful death actions, to withstand a motion to dismiss under CPLR 4401. Consequently, a new trial was granted for the plaintiff.

Wrongful deathNegligenceBreach of warrantyConstruction accidentDefective weldingCircumstantial evidenceCPLR 4401Prima facie evidenceBurden of proofAppellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Higher Education Services Corp. v. Srebrenik

A traverse hearing was held to determine if the plaintiff's service of summons and complaint was defective under CPLR 308 (2). While the mailing requirement was satisfied, the defendant argued the delivery to St. Luke's Hospital at 421 West 113th Street was not her actual place of business, as her department was located elsewhere. The plaintiff failed to provide the process server's testimony, and the defendant denied receiving the documents. The court found that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof, and the delivery to an unrelated department within a large institution like St. Luke's Hospital, without proof of administrative responsibility for delivery, rendered the service defective. Therefore, the action was dismissed.

Service of ProcessCPLR 308 (2)Actual Place of BusinessDue ProcessPersonal ServiceSummons and ComplaintDefective ServiceBurden of ProofTraverse HearingDelivery Requirement
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kessel v. Public Service Commission

This case involves an appeal challenging a rate increase granted to the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) by the Public Service Commission. LILCO had requested the increase due to severe financial difficulties and the anticipated non-operation of its Shoreham nuclear plant, leading to a "Financial Stability Adjustment" (FSA) to improve cash flow without increasing income. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that the Commission failed to exercise proper discretion, did not adequately consider ratepayers' interests, and improperly shifted the burden of proof. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that it had appropriately balanced the interests of consumers and investors to preserve LILCO's financial integrity and ensure reliable service. The court also dismissed allegations regarding the burden of proof and judicial bias, concluding that the Commission's determinations were rational and supported by the record.

Rate IncreasePublic Service CommissionLong Island Lighting Company (LILCO)Financial Stability Adjustment (FSA)Utility RegulationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUtility RatesShoreham Nuclear PlantBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. ADJ2212288
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

GUILLERMO GOMEZ vs. BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimants seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration because the case file lacked proof of service for the notice of the lien trial. The Board has ordered the defendant to provide proof of service within 15 days. This action is intended to allow for a proper review of the facts and law regarding the dismissed liens.

Lien Claim DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceMinutes of HearingLien TrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJBrinderson ConstructorsTravelers InsuranceWestside Health-Chiropractic
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2009

L&L Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Garadice, Inc.

Plaintiff, an unlicensed entity, contracted with a general contractor to provide plumbing and HVAC services for a residence owned by defendant Miller. Defendants withheld payment, alleging licensing violations under the Administrative Code of City of NY for plumbing work not performed or supervised by a licensed master plumber. The court modified the lower court's summary judgment, reinstating plaintiff's claims for HVAC services as these do not require plumbing licenses. While plaintiff's subcontracting for sewer work was deemed compliant, other plumbing work lacked adequate proof of supervision, though such a violation wouldn't forfeit fees. Additionally, the plaintiff's mechanic's lien was invalidated due to procedural defects regarding the affidavit of service and timely notice of pendency under the Lien Law.

Licensing requirementsPlumbing servicesHVAC servicesSummary judgment motionSubcontractingLien LawMaster plumberConstruction disputeContract disputeUnlicensed contractor
References
3
Case No. ADJ478277 (LAO 0857795)
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

LUIS OSUNA vs. COLOR GRAPHICS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

Defendant Gallagher Bassett Services sought reconsideration of a Compromise and Release (C&R) approval, alleging an error in permanent disability advances due to oversight of attorney fees. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than 20 days after the C&R was issued, and the defendant failed to provide proof of actual receipt after asserting defective service. Even if considered on its merits, the Board would have denied the petition, as the calculation error was a unilateral mistake by the defendant and not grounds for setting aside the C&R.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeUntimely PetitionDefective ServiceJurisdictionPermanent Disability AdvancesUnilateral MistakeService of Process
References
11
Case No. ADJ9416789
Regular
May 10, 2019

ANTONIO CHAVEZ vs. DEL SOL FARM LABOR SERVICES, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Antonio Chavez's petition for reconsideration as untimely, having been filed on March 13, 2019, well past the January 28, 2019 deadline. Additionally, the petition lacked the required verification and proof of service on adverse parties. These multiple procedural defects, including the untimeliness, failure to verify, and lack of service, deprived the Board of jurisdiction to consider the petition's merits. Therefore, the petition was dismissed based on these grounds.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903Labor Code Section 5905California Code of Regulations Title 8Jurisdiction
References
5
Case No. ADJ3107406 (LAO 0758074)
Regular
Jun 21, 2013

SHAN S. GU vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien for failure to pay a required activation fee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed untimely, outside the statutory 20-day window after service. Furthermore, even if timely, the petition would have been dismissed for failure to serve all adverse parties and file proof of service. The WCAB noted the lien activation fee was, in fact, paid prior to the dismissal, but this did not cure the procedural defects of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalLien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCJReport and RecommendationEAMSProof of Service
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,681 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