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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. ADJ8693165
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

JEREMY VALENCIA vs. AGI PUBLISHING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order imposing sanctions against the injured worker's attorney. This was due to improper service of the sanctions order and lack of sufficient notice, preventing the attorney from an adequate opportunity to be heard. The WCAB denied the petition for disqualification of the judge, finding no evidence of bias. The petition concerning the notice of intention to dismiss the case was dismissed as it was not a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of Intention to DismissWCJInjured WorkerCounselService of ProcessOfficial Address Record
References
5
Case No. ADJ299234 (RIV 0051292)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

JUAN GARCIA vs. WILLIAM BOWER ASSOCIATES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Applicant Juan Garcia seeking reconsideration of his workers' compensation claim's dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow Applicant an opportunity to show good cause why the dismissal should not be affirmed. The Applicant claims he was denied due process because his attorneys allegedly did not receive the Notice of Intention to Dismiss or the defendant's Petitions for Dismissal. The Board, however, presumes proper mailing and is giving Applicant's counsel a 30-day window to present a verified response demonstrating good cause.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseFailure to ProsecuteLack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissDue ProcessVerified ResponseService of ProcessWCJAppeals Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ8938458
Regular
Jun 16, 2014

JUAN SOLANO RAMIREZ vs. ELAINE BELL CATERING, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a Petition for Reconsideration filed by former attorney Kenneth Martinson concerning a dismissed claim. Martinson argued the claim was dismissed before he could pursue his lien for fees. However, Martinson subsequently withdrew his Petition for Reconsideration and also requested the dismissal of his lien. Consequently, the Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as withdrawn and dismissed Martinson's lien by operation of law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien DismissalLabor Code Section 5710Appeals Board Rule 10770(g)Appeals Board Rule 10770(h)Dismissal of ClaimLien ClaimantWithdrawal of PetitionAttorney Fees
References
0
Case No. ADJ3802070 (OAK 0299591)
Regular
Sep 21, 2010

KATHY MCFALL vs. CITY OF TRACY; ACCLAMATION FRESNO

The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind a WCJ's order denying dismissal. The WCJ had correctly noted that the defendant vitiated its dismissal petition by concurrently filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, thus reactivating the case. Although the defendant's petition was dismissed without prejudice, the Board clarified that filing a DOR does not prevent a case from being dismissed if inactive for over a year. The case is now scheduled for a mandatory settlement conference where the dismissal issue can be addressed on its merits.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10582Declaration of Readiness to ProceedPetition to DismissOff CalendarMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ7331340
Regular
Sep 07, 2012

JAKE VU vs. MOLINA HEALTH CARE CENTER, TRAVELERS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order dismissing his workers' compensation case. The applicant claimed he did not understand he was dismissing his case when he signed the dismissal order on the same day he dismissed his attorney. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely, as it was filed over three months after the dismissal order was served. While the petition was dismissed, the Board advised the applicant that he could file a new application for adjudication of claim within the statutory period if he wished to pursue his claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIn pro perNotice of Dismissal of Attorneyuntimely petitionjurisdictionLabor CodeInformation and Assistance OfficeApplication for Adjudication of Claim
References
4
Case No. ADJ9799351
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

NERY BETSABE CASTANEDA GUZMAN vs. CEDARLANE NATURAL FOODS, SENTRY INSURANCE

The applicant's petition for reconsideration of the dismissal of case ADJ9799351 is denied due to repeated failure to appear at depositions and a conference, even after a notice of intention to dismiss was issued. The applicant's contention that this dismissal also affected cases ADJ10273840 and ADJ10273841 is rejected, as those cases are distinct and pending in a different district office. Therefore, the appeals board dismissed the petition for reconsideration regarding ADJ10273840 and ADJ10273841 and denied it for ADJ9799351.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseWCJNotice of Intention to DismissFailure to AppearDepositionsPriority ConferenceGood CauseCommunication Issues
References
2
Case No. 05-19154-jf
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Bridge to Life, Inc.

The Bridge To Life, Inc. ("Bridge") filed a Chapter 11 petition for the second time, despite a prior dismissal with prejudice. The court sua sponte dismissed the second case, leading Bridge to file a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, a stay pending appeal. Bridge argued that the bar to refiling no longer applied as the underlying state court action against it had been dismissed. The court denied Bridge's motion, ruling that the refiling violated a prior injunction and constituted a misuse of Chapter 11. The court found that Bridge's Chapter 11 filings were primarily litigation tactics to gain advantage in a two-party dispute with William Lucadamo and to avoid enforcement of a sanctions judgment, rather than for legitimate reorganization purposes. The court emphasized that Chapter 11 should not be used to frustrate non-bankruptcy forums or to avoid supersedeas bonds.

BankruptcyChapter 11Motion for ReconsiderationStay Pending AppealBad Faith FilingLitigation TacticTwo-Party DisputePrior DismissalInjunction ViolationSanctions Judgment
References
19
Case No. ADJ9734483, ADJ9502727
Regular
Oct 08, 2015

JUAN PALMA vs. CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant whose case, ADJ9502727, was inadvertently dismissed due to a clerical error when he filed a dismissal petition for a duplicative case, ADJ9734483. Although the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely and therefore dismissed, the Appeals Board granted removal on its own motion. The Board rescinded the erroneous dismissal order for ADJ9502727, finding it caused significant prejudice and was a correctable clerical mistake. The matter is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseADJ9502727ADJ9734483WCJremovalclerical erroruntimely petitionrescinded order
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 24,862 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