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
Feb 22, 2005

Canino v. Electronic Technologies Co.

Plaintiff, an electrician employed by Electronic Technologies Company (ETC), sustained injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while installing security equipment at a facility owned by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Plaintiff subsequently initiated legal action against both ETC and IBM, alleging multiple violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment against IBM concerning liability under Labor Law section 240 (1), while the defendants filed a cross-motion requesting the dismissal of the entire complaint. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, leading to these cross-appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the adequacy of the safety device provided and whether the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, thus preventing summary judgment for either side.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Workplace AccidentLadder SafetySummary Judgment MotionCross AppealsQuestion of FactProximate CauseConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises Owner Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goulding v. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Pro se plaintiff Mary Goulding sued the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging she was denied job advancement and later terminated due to her age. She had initially filed a complaint with the EEOC in 1984, which was deferred to the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), where her claim was denied. After her employment was terminated in 1989, Goulding initiated this federal lawsuit. IEEE moved to dismiss claims arising after November 1984, arguing Goulding had not properly filed new EEOC or state claims for these subsequent events or observed the statutory 60-day conciliation period. The court acknowledged Goulding's failure to meet these procedural requirements but, citing precedent, opted to suspend the prematurely filed claims rather than dismiss them, allowing for proper compliance with the statutory waiting periods.

Age discriminationADEASubject matter jurisdictionEEOCState Division of Human RightsProcedural requirementsConciliation periodMotion to dismissEmployment lawFederal court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ8681153
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ vs. PITMAN FARMS, INC., YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior order dismissing a lien claimant's claim for interpreter fees. The lien claimant had filed a declaration required by Labor Code section 4903.05, but did not electronically file it as required by WCAB Rule 10770.7. The Board found that although the electronic filing was defective, the lien claimant substantially complied by timely filing the declaration on paper. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level for the lien claimant to correct the filing and for adjudication of remaining issues.

Labor Code Section 4903.05WCAB Rule 10770.7Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien ClaimantDeclaration of LienDismissal by Operation of LawReconsiderationRemovalSubstantial ComplianceJurisdictional Time Limitation
References
4
Case No. ADJ9249111
Regular
Dec 01, 2016

JERMAINE HILL vs. COCA COLA COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Psychological Assessment Services (PAS) regarding a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB dismissed the petition as untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed, meaning received by the board, within 25 days of service by mail, with electronic filing deadlines also strictly enforced. In this instance, PAS electronically filed its petition one day after the jurisdictional deadline, rendering it void.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailElectronic FilingWCABWCJLabor Code SectionsCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
4
Case No. ADJ2023756 (SAC 0323234) ADJ2900558 (SAC 0358707)
Regular
Aug 30, 2013

VICTORIA BRESHEARS vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the employer's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely because it was filed electronically after 5:00 p.m. on the deadline. The Board held that electronic filings received after 5:00 p.m. are deemed filed on the next business day, rendering the petition outside the jurisdictional timeframe. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition on its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFindings and OrderElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMS Batch IDTimely FilingJurisdictionalLabor CodeCode of Civil Procedure
References
6
Case No. ADJ7605385
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

SANDRA GONZALEZ vs. JIB HOLDINGS, LLC, dba JACK IN THE BOX, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Sandra Gonzalez v. JIB Holdings, LLC*, concerns a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The Board found the petition was filed after the jurisdictional 25-day deadline, regardless of whether it was mailed or electronically filed. Even considering the extended deadline for mail service and the rules for electronic filing on non-business days, the petition was still late. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictionProof of ServiceWCAB Business DayElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLegal DeadlineMail ServiceAdministrative Law Judge
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NAS Electronics, Inc. v. Transtech Electronics PTE Ltd.

The plaintiffs, NAS Electronics, Inc., Jerry Choe, and Pil Yon Choe, initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court against Transtech Electronics Pte Ltd., NAS-Transtech Technology Ltd., and four individuals, alleging fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, slander, and seeking a preliminary injunction. This lawsuit arose from a previous settlement agreement where the plaintiffs owed the defendants $3.2 million due to the plaintiffs' failure to make timely payments and transfer patent rights. The case was subsequently removed to the Southern District of New York. Presiding District Judge Koeltl granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissal on all claims. The fraud claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, the breach of contract claim failed due to the plaintiffs' own material breach, and the tortious interference, slander, and preliminary injunction claims were deemed unsupportable or moot. The court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, leave to amend the complaint, and to reopen discovery.

Summary JudgmentContract LawFraud ClaimRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceSlander ClaimPreliminary InjunctionFederal Civil Procedure
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1994

Whirlpool Corp. v. Philips Electronics, N.V.

This case involves Whirlpool Corporation seeking to confirm a foreign arbitral award against Philips Electronics N.V., while Philips moved to dismiss or stay the action pending further arbitration. The dispute arose from a joint venture and subsequent acquisition of Philips' Argentine MDA operations by Whirlpool, specifically concerning the revaluation of fixed assets and the applicable accounting policies under their Reorganization and Purchase Agreement (RPA) and Amendment No. 1. An initial arbitration before Arthur Andersen & Co. ruled in favor of Whirlpool, determining that Schedule G of the RPA, which limited asset revaluation, applied despite Philips' arguments for a different "Schedule G (Argentina)." The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, affirmed Andersen's jurisdiction and the validity of its binding award. Consequently, Whirlpool's motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award was granted, and Philips' motion to dismiss or stay the action was denied.

Arbitral Award ConfirmationForeign ArbitrationContract DisputeAccounting PoliciesAsset ValuationJoint VentureCorporate AcquisitionFederal Arbitration ActDispute ResolutionJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
20
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 8,526 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