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
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Rasberry ex rel. Situated v. Columbia Cnty.

This order addresses Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine, seeking to exclude various categories of evidence in a case concerning alleged overtime violations under the FLSA. The Court granted several of Plaintiffs' requests, including those related to prior civil lawsuits, bankruptcies, other jailers not part of the suit, other employment, alleged waivers of FLSA rights, attorneys' fees, settlement offers, and general negative impacts of lawsuits. However, the Court denied requests concerning references to past criminal convictions (without prejudice), employment by the Defendant outside the relevant period (without prejudice), disciplinary actions (without prejudice), and the amount of Plaintiffs' salaries. The Court also denied the request regarding the jury's role in mathematically computing damages, stating it would be addressed in jury instructions. The overall decision was granted in part and denied in part.

Motion in LimineEvidence ExclusionOvertime ViolationsFLSAFair Labor Standards ActCredibilityUndue PrejudiceIrrelevant EvidenceJury ConfusionDamages Calculation
References
2
Case No. ADJ8363948
Regular
Oct 19, 2012

NICOLE NELSON vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

The defendant County of Solano sought removal to obtain a new panel of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) due to alleged ex parte communications between the applicant and the current QME. The Appeals Board denied this petition, finding that the communications were either insignificant and inconsequential or related to the QME examination itself. Specifically, emails concerning necessary forms and an insignificant mention of a claims adjuster's number did not violate the ex parte communication prohibition. Therefore, the WCJ's denial of the defendant's request for a new QME panel was upheld.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)ex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3termination of evaluationreplacement panelinsignificant communicationinconsequential communicationindustrial injurypsyche
References
1
Case No. ADJ7257372
Regular
Dec 14, 2015

Joshua Geiger vs. George Geiger, State Farm Insurance Bakersfield

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The defendant argued that applicant's spouse had improper ex parte communication with the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) by providing video and notes of the applicant's seizures. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the communication occurred at the AME's request during the examination and was therefore exempt from statutory ex parte communication prohibitions. The Board concluded that the information provided was de minimis and did not warrant removal of the AME or striking of reports, especially since the seizure disorder was not a disputed issue.

Ex parte communicationAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Labor Code Section 4062.3Rule 35Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJ ReportEpilepsySeizuresHome health care
References
4
Case No. ADJ3636557
Regular
May 08, 2009

MARIA ANA PAREDES (Deceased) CARLOS ALFREDO ALVAREZ (Widower) vs. ANDROMEDA ENTERTAINMENT dba GALAXY BALLROOM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal challenging a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision denying sanctions for alleged improper ex parte communication. The Board denied reconsideration and dismissed removal, affirming the WCJ's finding that the communication between defense counsel and the panel QME was administrative, not substantive, and therefore not a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3. The Board found no basis for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813 as no party initiated an improper ex parte communication. Consequently, the WCJ's denial of the motion to strike the QME report and request for penalties was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalEx Parte CommunicationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code Section 4062.3SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Panel QME ReportAdministrative Communication
References
4
Case No. ADJ6502775, ADJ6498620, ADJ8109003, ADJ8115890
Regular
May 09, 2014

MARIA POHYAR vs. DEY LP, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the issue of whether the defendant Zurich is entitled to a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was only before the WCJ based on a procedural rule regarding appointment notification forms, not ex parte communications. The WCAB clarified that issues of ex parte communications and the applicability of related statutes and rules were not yet properly before the Board. Therefore, the applicant's request for the WCAB to assert jurisdiction and rule against Zurich on the QME panel issue was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJurisdictionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel QMEDivision of Workers' Compensation (DWC) RulesLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical Director
References
7
Case No. 7053 (VLB)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1992

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Spark Tarrytown, Inc.

District Judge Broderick's memorandum explains the decision to grant an ex-parte order for the appointment of a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure case initiated by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC). The judge justified the extraordinary remedy by citing the defendants' inability to be located, the imminent collection of rents, and a history of non-payment despite repeated requests. The decision emphasizes stringent due process requirements for ex-parte relief, referencing Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents on pre-deprivation notice. The accompanying order formally appoints Jerry Waxenberg as Receiver, detailing his comprehensive powers and duties for property management, rent collection, and compliance with legal requirements in Westchester County.

Ex-parteReceivershipMortgage ForeclosureDue ProcessProperty RightsNotice RequirementsDefaultRent CollectionProperty ManagementJudicial Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ6945103
Regular
Mar 15, 2011

ENRIQUE ESTRADA TOVAR vs. SATTUI WINERY, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO

Applicant's attorney filed two requests for disqualification of WCJ Gondak, alleging judicial misconduct, including an ex parte conversation and calling the attorney irrational. The first request, a letter dated February 4, 2011, was formally denied by the Appeals Board based on the WCJ's report. The second, a formal petition filed March 2, 2011, was dismissed as an unauthorized supplemental pleading. Both requests were ultimately denied, allowing WCJ Gondak to continue involvement in the case.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452WCAB Rule 10458Preemptory ChallengesWCJPWCJex parte conversationsanctions
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reilly v. Revlon, Inc.

Plaintiff Lisa Reilly filed this action against Revlon, Inc. and two employees, alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination under the ADA, PDA, FMLA, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Reilly's claims stemmed from issues related to her pregnancy and subsequent postpartum depression, including allegations of FMLA interference and retaliation, and disability discrimination. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the FMLA and PDA claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding interference, retaliation, or pregnancy discrimination. However, the court denied summary judgment on Reilly's ADA and analogous state and city law disability discrimination claims, determining that there were triable issues regarding her disability status and the reasonableness of the requested part-time work accommodation.

Employment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities ActFamily Medical Leave ActPregnancy Discrimination ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPostpartum DepressionReasonable Accommodation
References
32
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 4,558 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