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. ADJ10250093
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

DENIS PADILLA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant, Denis Padilla, versus their employer, Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Padilla's Petition for Reconsideration in this matter. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion on DecisionPermit Self-InsuredADJ10250093Pomona District OfficeDenying PetitionWCJ ReportAdopted Opinion
References
0
Case No. 535717
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Denis Campos

The Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department affirmed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim filed by Denis Campos. Claimant Campos, a construction worker, sought benefits after an accident. The Board had ruled that American Zurich Insurance Company was the liable workers' compensation carrier due to an improperly canceled policy, as per Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). American Zurich's appeal, including a request for reconsideration and full Board review, was denied because they failed to present crucial evidence to the Workers' Compensation Law Judge despite prior directives. The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider newly submitted evidence on administrative appeal and affirmed the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Carrier LiabilityPolicy CancellationAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesJudicial DiscretionConstruction AccidentLadder FallThird Judicial Department
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Case No. ADJ9214889
Regular
Dec 08, 2014

JIE BAI vs. PEBBLE BEACH, INTERCARE

This case involves applicant Jie Bai's petitions for reconsideration and removal stemming from two separate orders by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions, adopting the judge's reasoning. Reconsideration was denied regarding sanctions imposed on applicant's attorney for a late appearance, finding the attorney's tardiness and lack of excuse justified the sanction. Removal was denied regarding a change of venue to Salinas, as the judge found good cause based on the applicant's residence, injury location, and logistical convenience, despite the applicant's counsel's objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Imposing SanctionsOrder Changing VenueWorkers' Compensation JudgeLabor Code §5813Title 8CCR §10561Failure to Appear
References
0
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Case No. ADJ10280648
Regular
Sep 23, 2019

MICHAEL BIANCHI vs. FREDRICK NEWHALL WOODS TRUST; IRENE SUGANO, TRUSTEE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding the judge's order allowing CBS News to film a hearing. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy, and that reconsideration would be adequate. The defendant's separate Petition to Disqualify the judge based on alleged bias was also denied, with the Board agreeing with the judge's recommendation. Ultimately, both petitions were denied based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's reports.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJfilming hearingCBS Newsirreparable harmsubstantial prejudicedisqualify WCJattorney Dominique Banos
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. VNO 0237717
Regular
May 19, 2000

SHERRY DALCOUR-MARTINELLI vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the administrative law judge's report. The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed, and their request for removal was denied, because the prior orders were non-final interlocutory decisions that did not determine substantive rights. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the denial of removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenyDismissRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderPre-trial Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derven v. PH Consulting, Inc.

Marjorie Derven, a salesperson for Advantis Research and Consulting, sued her former employer for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, claiming she was owed higher commissions on large projects with Eli Lilly. Advantis counterclaimed for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of duty of good faith and loyalty, and unfair competition, alleging Derven operated a competing firm while employed and misused company information. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court denied Derven's motion entirely and granted Advantis's motion regarding Derven's fraud and New York Labor Law claims, but denied it concerning breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court also denied Derven's motion for summary judgment on Advantis's counterclaims due to unresolved factual disputes.

Employment ContractCommission DisputesBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsTrade Secrets MisappropriationDuty of LoyaltyUnfair CompetitionSales Representative
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okeke v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs Ifeanyichukwu E. Okeke, Jerry Baglione, Iqbal Bajwa, Adel Mahmoud, Naeem U. Qureshi, and Abel De La Trinidad sued The New York and Presbyterian Hospital for age discrimination and hostile work environment under federal, state, and city laws. A jury found the Hospital liable on NYCHRL claims for age-related termination, denial of training, and hostile work environment, but not under federal and state law. The Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The Court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, granted in part and denied in part the motion for a new trial (specifically granting a new trial on the NYCHRL termination claims), and denied the motion for remittitur as moot. The hostile work environment claim under NYCHRL was sustained.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentNYCHRLADEAMixed-Motive DiscriminationJury VerdictRule 50 MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturDenial of Training
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 17,113 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