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
Mar 04, 1996

Javid v. Scott

Plaintiffs Eleanor Javid (as administratrix of Tige Javid's estate) and Kamal and Eleanor Javid (Tige's parents) filed a § 1983 action against Officer Edward Scott and the Village of Monroe, alleging excessive deadly force by Scott and inadequate screening/training policies by the Village. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Scott's actions were shielded by qualified immunity and the Village had no valid § 1983 claim against it. The court denied summary judgment regarding claims against Scott, citing genuine issues of material fact concerning the objective reasonableness of his use of deadly force. Initially deferring consideration of claims against the Village for discovery, the court later dismissed these claims with prejudice after plaintiffs announced their discontinuation. The decision allows the claims against Scott to proceed to trial, while absolving the Village of liability in this specific action.

Excessive forcePolice misconductQualified immunitySummary judgmentFourth AmendmentSection 1983Deadly forceMunicipal liabilityRespondeat superiorConstitutional rights
References
24
Case No. ADJ9210498
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

ELEANOR DEFRANCO vs. MONTEREY FISH COMPANY, ENSTAR (US) INC., dba ENSTAR ADMINISTRATORS FOR SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award that found industrial injury to applicant's right ankle, right shoulder, and back, but not her right knee. The WCAB rescinded the finding of industrial injury to the back, while otherwise affirming the prior decision. Specifically, the WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained industrial injury to her right ankle and right shoulder, and that medical treatment for her right knee is compensable to relieve the effects of the industrial injuries. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning for these decisions, including the application of the *Braewood* principle for treating the non-industrial knee condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEleanor DefrancoMonterey Fish CompanyEnstarSeabright Insurance CompanyIndustrial InjuryRight AnkleRight ShoulderRight KneeBack Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6590798 ADJ6590824
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

ELEANOR CASTILLO vs. SENIOR HELPERS, ENDURANCE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This was done to allow further study of complex factual and legal issues. The Board also granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental response addressing new issues raised by the lien claimant in their Answer. All future filings in this case must now be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners, not to district offices or via electronic filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationSupplemental ResponseLien ClaimantReasonable ExpensesSanctionsAppeals Board Rule 10848Labor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
1
Case No. ADJ6590798; ADJ6590824
Regular
May 08, 2012

ELEANOR CASTILLO vs. SENIOR HELPER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SCO

The defendant sought to have the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amend the Minutes of Hearing to include certain "stricken" issues. The WCAB denied this Petition for Removal. They agreed with the judge that the defendant's proposed issues, such as estoppel and contract law, are matters for the judge to consider when determining the enforceability of a lien settlement. The Board found no reason to bifurcate the issues, as evidence and testimony on all matters were already present.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMinutes of Hearinglien settlementenforceable agreementbifurcate issuesapplicant's injurycourse of employmentcosts and sanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ9712319
Regular
Jun 20, 2025

ELEANOR DIAZ NEVAREZ vs. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOLS INSURANCE AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant Elk Grove Unified School District. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the utilization review (UR) was untimely and procedurally defective, specifically regarding a Request for Authorization (RFA) for an H-Wave device. The defendant had argued the RFA was incomplete, but the Board found it procedurally complete, thus triggering UR obligations. The Board concluded that the defendant's failure to issue a timely conditional denial, as required by regulations, rendered the UR invalid and untimely. Additionally, the Board confirmed its decision was issued in compliance with the 60-day timeframe stipulated by Labor Code section 5909.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909TransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSReport and RecommendationUtilization ReviewURRequest for Authorization
References
7
Case No. ADJ4631456 (AHM 0080569), ADJ4461257 (LAO 0786386)
Regular
Nov 15, 2010

, Eleanor Pereua vs. , Rio Hondo Community College; CIGA through its Servicing Facility Cambridge for Fremont In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration because the original decision lacked clarity on the specific unpaid benefits, delay periods, and the basis for penalties. The Board rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings to obtain clear findings on delayed compensation, penalty amounts, and attorney fees. This action was taken due to insufficient evidence and vague findings by the administrative law judge regarding the extent of unpaid benefits and the reasonableness of any delay. The case will be reconsidered after the WCJ clarifies these issues with supporting evidence and makes explicit findings.

CIGALabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderStipulations with Request for AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityAttorney's FeesPenalty
References
2
Case No. ADJ4631456 (AHM 0080569)
Regular
Apr 03, 2013

ELEANOR PEREAU vs. RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION through its servicing facility CAMBRIDGE for FREMONT in liquidation

Lien claimant Dr. Jaime Anselen's petition for reconsideration of a dismissed lien was denied. The Appeals Board found the petition untimely, filed 58 days after the WCJ's order, exceeding the 20-day limit. Furthermore, the petition was unverified, a requirement for reconsideration, and the claimant failed to cure this defect. The Board noted Dr. Anselen's failure to appear at the lien conference and lack of timely communication regarding his absence, despite reassurances from defense counsel that the matter was resolved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionFailure to AppearLien ConferenceNotice of Intention to DismissWCJSanctions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1985

People v. Sullivan

This dissenting opinion challenges the dismissal of a second-degree manslaughter indictment against an ESU police officer involved in the fatal shooting of Eleanor Bumpurs during an eviction. The dissent argues that the Criminal Term erred by not applying the standard of viewing Grand Jury evidence most favorably to the People and by improperly re-evaluating facts reserved for the Grand Jury. Crucially, the dissent highlights expert medical testimony, ignored by Criminal Term, which stated Mrs. Bumpurs could not have held a knife after the first shotgun blast to her hand, thereby undermining the justification for the second, fatal shot to her chest based on police department guidelines. The dissent concludes that the order dismissing the indictment should be reversed and the indictment reinstated.

Criminal LawManslaughterGrand JuryIndictmentPolice Use of ForceSelf-defenseMedical ExpertEvidence SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monaghan v. SZS 33 Associates, L/P.

William Monaghan, an employee of New York Telephone, was shot in the head during an attempted robbery on Stairway 307 within a property owned by SZS Associates, L.P. His wife, Eleanor Monaghan, filed a personal injury action against SZS, alleging a breach of duty of care. SZS moved for summary judgment, arguing their duty was limited to the Vestibule, not Stairway 307 where the assault occurred, and that the danger was not foreseeable. The court examined easement agreements from 1935 and 1940, along with maintenance practices, and concluded that the Railroad Company was responsible for Stairway 307, while SZS's predecessor (Gimbel's) was responsible only for the Vestibule. Therefore, the court granted SZS's summary judgment motion, finding no duty of care towards Monaghan regarding Stairway 307 and insufficient evidence to establish foreseeability of a criminal assault in the Vestibule.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentForeseeability of CrimeEasement DisputeLandowner DutyThird-Party Criminal ActVestibuleStairwayNew York Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Thompson v. Hayduscko

Claimant Gloria Thompson, a licensed home health aide, was initially employed by M.E.A. Healthcare Services. She was later privately hired by Clare Hayduscko to provide nursing services to Eleanor Adamec, working over 40 hours per week and paid with Adamec's funds. In June 2007, Thompson injured her right ankle while caring for Adamec and filed a workers' compensation claim against Hayduscko, who she named as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) twice determined that Thompson was an independent contractor, disallowing the claim. However, the full Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding Thompson to be a domestic worker engaged in covered employment and Hayduscko to be her employer, establishing the claim for accidental injury. Hayduscko appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship is not a final, appealable order as it does not resolve all substantive issues in the claim and thus does not present a threshold legal issue for review prior to the Board's final determination.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer-Employee DisputeIndependent Contractor StatusDomestic Worker DefinitionJurisdictionAppeal DismissalNon-Final DecisionAppellate Review LimitationsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionHome Healthcare Services
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 10 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