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

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dudas v. Town of Lancaster

The claimant, a laborer, allegedly injured his right ankle on February 28, 2007, after slipping on ice at the employer's Town Hall. Despite ongoing symptoms, the claimant delayed seeking medical treatment and reporting the injury to the employer until June 27, 2007. The employer's workers' compensation carrier initially authorized medical care but later controverted the claim due to conflicting reports regarding the cause of injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim for failure to provide timely notice, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer did not waive the defense of timely notice and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the claim given the claimant's delay in reporting and treatment.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeAnkle InjurySlip and FallEmployer PrejudiceMedical Treatment DelayClaim DisallowanceBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Albano v. Waldbaum's

In 1996, the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his right shoulder and neck. Thirteen years later, in January 2009, he claimed another work-related injury to his neck, right hand, and left leg. The Workers’ Compensation Board established a work-related neck injury from the 2009 incident and denied the employer's application for reconsideration, leading to this appeal. The employer argued that its request to cross-examine the claimant’s physicians was wrongly denied because their initial reports lacked reference to the 2009 accident. The court, however, found that this issue was thoroughly addressed at the hearing, and the physicians' reports, despite the omission, were consistent with the claimant's testimony. Crucially, experts, including the employer's own orthopedic surgeon, concluded that the injuries were causally related to the January 2009 incident. Consequently, the Board's decision to deny the cross-examination request was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryRight Hand InjuryLeft Leg InjuryMedical ReportsCross-ExaminationCausationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. ADJ8011693
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

FRED DICKINSON vs. KING COMPANIES, LLC, dba SERVICE MASTER OF SANTA CRUZ, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Fred Dickinson's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a left eye injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dickinson's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that his injury was not sustained in the course of employment. The denial was based on the administrative law judge's report, which found Dickinson to be an unreliable witness due to inconsistent statements regarding the injury's origin. Specifically, a physician's early report indicated the injury occurred at Dickinson's home, corroborating the employer's testimony about payment options for surgery being provided.

Petition for ReconsiderationAOE/COEcredibilityinconsistent statementssubstantial evidenceindustrial injuryleft eyehardwood flooringprivate payPQME
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1983

Claim of Hughes v. New York Telephone Co.

A line foreman, though not on duty, was requested by his employer to check a report of a broken pole. While preparing to use a company car parked in his driveway for this task, he sustained an injury to his mouth after stepping on a rake. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the injury did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work. It concluded that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Duty WorkEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewAffirmationOccupational HazardWorkplace Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. ADJ13090134
Regular
Aug 14, 2025

OLIVIA RAMIREZ vs. ISIDRO A. MEJIA, ZINDER JANITORIAL CO., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, BOURBON PUB/PARADIES LAGARDERE, SENTRY INSURANCE

Applicant Olivia Ramirez sustained an injury to her knee and ankle on November 17, 2019, while employed by Isidro A. Mejia and Zinder Janitorial Co., who were uninsured for workers' compensation. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) successfully joined Paradies Lagardere as a co-defendant, alleging joint employer status. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found Paradies to be a joint employer in Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025. Paradies sought reconsideration, disputing the joint employer finding and the injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the UEBTF's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately granting reconsideration but deferring a final decision on the merits, indicating further review of the record and applicable law is necessary. The decision also clarified that Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, related to employee classification, do not apply retroactively to the date of injury in this case.

Joint employerUninsured employersParadies LagardereZinder JanitorialIsidro MejiaWCJPetition for ReconsiderationAOE/COELabor Code section 5909EAMS
References
17
Case No. ADJ6680848
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

MARIA VASQUEZ vs. COMPLETELY FRESH FOODS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of a prior finding that Maria Vasquez sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer challenged the finding based on various legal and factual grounds, including the timing of notice of injury relative to termination and the credibility of witnesses. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony regarding reporting the injury credible and sufficient to overcome the employer's defense under Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10). The Board also upheld the WCJ's weighing of testimonial evidence and the finding of injury supported by medical reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCOMPLETELY FRESH FOODSLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYADJ6680848ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONGARZA V. WORKERS' COMP. APPEALS BD.WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONMECHANISM OF INJURYREPORT OF INJURY
References
1
Case No. ADJ7253662, ADJ7254554
Regular
Sep 02, 2012

Guillermo Rivera vs. Cal Scan Trade Company/Villa Auto Sales, ACE USA, Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that Guillermo Rivera did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, which found the employer's witness more credible regarding job duties and the reported incident. Key factors for the WCJ's decision included the applicant's lack of timely medical treatment, the credibility of the applicant's testimony compared to the employer's witness, and the insufficient reasoning in the medical report. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingLabor Code section 5903Adjudication of ClaimCar SalesmanInjury Arising Out of and Occurring in the Course of EmploymentMedical EvidenceJob Duties
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Huggins v. Masterclass Masonry

A bricklayer claimant was injured in a municipal bus shelter across from his worksite while eating lunch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that lunchtime injuries are generally outside the scope of employment unless the employer maintains control, which was not established. The court also rejected arguments regarding proximity to the worksite, finding no causal relationship or special hazard, and dismissed the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), noting it does not wholly relieve the claimant of the burden of proving the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Lunch Break InjuryBus Shelter AccidentScope of EmploymentEmployer ControlCausal RelationshipSpecial HazardFortuitous CoincidenceWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 20,872 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