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. ADJ1229350 (MON 0254127) ADJ4167799 (MON 0254128)
Regular
Jul 09, 2009

ANGELA HURTAULT vs. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration and/or removal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's (WCJ) prior order. The WCJ had found the lien claimant engaged in egregious and frivolous tactics, warranting sanctions and attorney's fees for the defendant. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify removal. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the removal petition and denied reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeSanctionAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5310Extraordinary RemedySignificant Prejudice
References
2
Case No. ADJ6928415, ADJ6927692, ADJ6928688
Regular
Apr 14, 2014

JOSE MELENDEZ vs. DAYLIGHT TRANSPORT LLC, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration of an order imposing sanctions against applicant's attorneys, Daniel Ysabel and the Law Office of Ramin Younessi. The WCJ found their actions in pursuing attorney's fees after payment was made to be egregious and frivolous, violating Labor Code section 5813. The Board agreed that the attorneys continued needless litigation, failed to present evidence of reasonableness, and their petition for reconsideration was meritless. The attorneys are admonished for their conduct and warned that such behavior could lead to further sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813EgregiousFrivolousSanctionsApplicant's AttorneyMandatory Settlement ConferenceCompromise and Release
References
0
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. ADJ9719826
Regular
Aug 12, 2016

ABIGAIL FLORES vs. RISSE CONSTRUCTION CO., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a $\$1000$ sanction order for bad-faith actions. The sanction was imposed due to the defendant's egregious delay and frivolous objections in paying a $\$180$ interpreter's lien, which took over eight months and required multiple billings and a court order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the WCJ's finding of frivolous conduct intended to cause unnecessary delay. The Board also affirmed that due process was satisfied by providing the defendant notice and an opportunity to respond to the sanctions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsOrder Imposing SanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous ConductWCJLien ClaimUnnecessary DelayCertified Interpreter
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giles v. Rhodes

Plaintiff Giles sued for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moving for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial after a jury found for the defendants. The plaintiff contended that medical evidence overwhelmingly showed his injuries were due to a beating at Sing Sing prison. The court denied the JMOL motion due to a procedural bar, as the plaintiff failed to request it during trial. The motion for a new trial was also denied on its merits, with the court deferring to the jury's assessment of witness credibility and finding no egregious result or miscarriage of justice.

Excessive ForceCivil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion for Judgment as a Matter of LawMotion for New TrialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a)Jury VerdictMedical EvidenceExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colton v. Riccobono

A petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the Administrative Judge and Clerk of the Medical Malpractice Part of Supreme Court, New York County, to immediately assemble a medical malpractice panel for her underlying wrongful death action. She argued that the delay in forming the panel unconstitutionally deprived her of access to the courts. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of her petition. It found no clear legal right to mandamus, no demonstration of egregious delay compared to other malpractice cases, and noted that alternative remedies, such as transferring the matter to another county, were available through judicial discretion.

Article 78 ProceedingMedical Malpractice PanelMandamusAccess to CourtsDue ProcessJudiciary Law § 148-aCourt DelayJudicial DiscretionAppellate DivisionNew York Supreme Court
References
22
Case No. ADJ768780 (FRE 0249044)
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

ANDRE PARENTEAU vs. GRIEF BROTHERS, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and modified a prior order, affirming the award of $5,252.50 in attorney's fees and costs against lien claimant AMR Group. While acknowledging AMR Group's egregious and meritless conduct, including filing a faulty Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, the WCAB rescinded a separate notice of intent to sanction. This second sanction notice was deemed improper as a prior WCJ had already addressed and dismissed a similar sanction for the same conduct. The WCAB emphasized that reissuing a sanction notice for the same actions violated due process.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAttorney's FeesCostsNotice of Intent to SanctionEgregious ConductFrivolous ConductWCJAdjudicated
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burkes v. Enlarged City School District

Petitioner, an 11-year teacher's aide, was terminated by the Enlarged City School District of Troy following misconduct charges. The charges included 16 specifications of inappropriate physical contact, threats, teasing, embarrassing comments, and inappropriate conversations with students and staff. A hearing officer dismissed four charges but found sufficient evidence for the remaining twelve specifications. The Board of Education adopted the recommendation of termination, leading to this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court found sufficient evidence to support the misconduct findings, rejecting due process claims and upholding the penalty of dismissal due to the pervasive and egregious nature of the conduct.

Employment TerminationTeacher MisconductSchool District DisciplineCPLR Article 78 ReviewDue Process ViolationInappropriate Student ContactWorkplace MisconductAdministrative DeterminationPublic Employee TerminationTeacher's Aide
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 53 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