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. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. ADJ6991789
Regular
Oct 19, 2010

BONNIE MCCLINTIC vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. The applicant's own petition for reconsideration, arguing the evidence supported her claim of injury to her psyche, low back, neck, and jaw, was denied. The Board granted the applicant's request to file supplemental petitions in response to the proceedings. The defendant's initial petition was dismissed because they withdrew it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Motor VehiclesState Compensation Insurance FundFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionWCJ ReportApplicantDefendantIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7144283
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

RALPH LOYNACHAN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involved an applicant's petition for removal, seeking to address penalties for delayed treatment, which the WCJ denied due to a pending lien conference. The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition, finding it failed to meet the extraordinary standards for removal, especially since a status conference request was inappropriate with a scheduled hearing. The defendant's subsequent notice, construed as a removal or disqualification petition, was dismissed as untimely. The Board found the defendant's notice to be without merit, admonishing counsel against future similar filings.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ GutierrezPenalties and SanctionsDelay of TreatmentCatastrophically Injured WorkerPetition for DisqualificationUntimely PetitionLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. ADJ7928242
Regular

TOYYA LASSERE vs. WARNER BROTHERS HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

Defendant Warner Brothers Home Entertainment filed two Petitions for Removal regarding Toyya Lassere's workers' compensation claim. Subsequently, defendant filed a Notice of Settlement Agreement and requested the withdrawal of both petitions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both Petitions for Removal as requested by the defendant.

Petitions for RemovalWithdrawal of PetitionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalSettlement AgreementRequest for WithdrawalPermissibly Self-InsuredVan Nuys District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ9893989
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

DAMIAN SANCHEZ vs. MICHAEL SIMMS dba SIMMS PAINTING AND DECORATING, TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the timeliness of a utilization review (UR) determination regarding a request for home health care. The defendant argued its UR denial was timely because it requested additional information, thereby extending the review period under Labor Code section 4610(g)(1). The WCJ initially found the UR determination untimely for prospective and concurrent review, but timely for retrospective review, citing a narrow interpretation of who can request further information. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found the UR denial timely. The Board held that the defendant's attorney, acting as an agent for the claims administrator, could validly request additional information, extending the UR deadline to 14 days.

Utilization ReviewRequest For AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewProspective ReviewConcurrent ReviewRetrospective ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Administrative Director Rule 9792.9.1Findings Of Fact And Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ689141 (VNO 0427602)
Regular
May 09, 2013

CHERYL CORRAL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Simultaneously, the Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the defendant not being an aggrieved party by the WCJ's decision. The outcome was the denial of the applicant's reconsideration request and the dismissal of the defendant's reconsideration request.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDDISMISSEDaggrievedWCJ's decisionLab. Code§ 5900Mullen & Filippi LLPDaniel Anaya
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Hughes, Harrison & Brown Roofing, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance

Plaintiffs, a corporation and individuals, initiated an action seeking a declaration that their insurance company, the defendant, was obligated to defend and indemnify them in a negligence lawsuit filed by an employee, Patrick Paul Black. The underlying negligence action alleged that the corporation failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. The defendant insurer denied its obligation, citing policy exclusions related to workers' compensation liabilities and disputing coverage for the individual plaintiffs. Initially, the Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the plaintiffs' request for accelerated judgment, compelling the insurer to provide defense. However, this judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, with the appellate court noting the absence of the actual insurance policy and the impropriety of adjudicating coverage without it, especially concerning the workers' compensation exclusion.

Insurance coverage disputeDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyWorkers' compensation exclusionAccelerated judgmentNegligence actionEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationSummary judgment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1990

People v. England

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Rockland County, rendered December 5, 1990, convicting him of resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the intoxicated defendant attacked and injured police officers who responded to an argument at a pizza shop. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the denial of the defendant's request to charge justification, as the evidence did not show excessive force by the officers. The court also rejected the defendant's claim of selective prosecution, noting that the pizza shop personnel complied with police orders and the defendant's prosecution was solely due to his assault on officers. Finally, the prosecutor's summation was found not to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Resisting ArrestObstructing Governmental AdministrationJustification DefenseExcessive ForceSelective ProsecutionJury VerdictCriminal LawAppellate ReviewNew York LawPolice Misconduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Yusufi

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Albany County, rendered August 16, 1995, convicting them of robbery in the first degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and petit larceny. The charges stemmed from an August 20, 1994 incident in Albany where the defendant was confronted by a vehicle owner while disassembling and stealing audio equipment, subsequently using a screwdriver as a dangerous instrument during an altercation. The defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for robbery in the first degree, arguing that the property was not removed from the vehicle. However, the court found sufficient dominion and control was exercised over the property for the conviction to stand. The defendant also contended that the People's failure to disclose the victim's rap sheet, despite a Brady request, warranted reversal. The court rejected this, concluding that the nondisclosure did not affect the trial outcome as the victim's testimony was largely cumulative and other evidence supported the verdict. Finally, the court affirmed the County Court's decision to limit cross-examination regarding the victim's alleged prior crime and found the sentence neither harsh nor excessive given the crime's nature and the defendant's criminal background.

Robbery First DegreeCriminal MischiefPetit LarcenyLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAsportationBrady MaterialNondisclosure of EvidenceCross-examination LimitsAbuse of DiscretionSentence Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 17,243 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