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. ADJ7618189
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

RUBEN OROZCO vs. EXACT STAFF, INC.; TOWER/NSM INSUREX, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case involves lien claimants Anderson Chiropractic and Santana Lopez seeking reconsideration of an order disallowing their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a crucial exhibit, Exhibit 6, was incomplete in the record. Lien claimants are ordered to file a complete copy of Exhibit 6 within 10 days to allow the Board to properly review the case. This action is necessary for the Board to study the facts and applicable law concerning the disallowed liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantsFindings and OrdersDisallowed liensExhibit 6Administrative law judgeWCJSupplemental pleadingSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. ADJ8603938
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

MACARIO IGLESIAS vs. ABE EL PRODUCE, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's exclusion of their exhibits. The exhibits were deemed untimely filed as they were received by the Board less than 20 days before trial, contrary to a pre-trial order. The Board confirmed that the relevant Appeals Board rule regarding filing dates had not been repealed and that the lien claimant failed to meet their burden of proof. A dissenting opinion argued the pre-trial order was potentially ambiguous and that the exhibits should have been admitted given timely service and no prejudice to the defendant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Judge (WCJ)ExhibitsTimely filedRepealed ruleRule 10392Pre-trial conference
References
3
Case No. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mournet v. Educational & Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry

The plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling at premises owned by the Educational and Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry (ECT), where her employer, Prudential Recreation Corp., doing business as JIB Lanes (JIB), leased space. The plaintiff sued both ECT and JIB. ECT asserted an affirmative defense that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of JIB. ECT moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), (17). The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that ECT failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding JIB’s control over ECT’s day-to-day operations. Further discovery was also deemed warranted due to ECT's exclusive knowledge of some facts.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrinePersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewDiscoveryPrima Facie EntitlementEmployer LiabilityRelated Entities
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2009

Goode v. Woodside

The plaintiff sued co-employee Scheniqua L. Woodside and Karl L. Abbadessa for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The plaintiff and Woodside were traveling to a mandatory staff meeting in Woodside's car after returning a company bus, indicating they were co-employees acting within the scope of their employment. The plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Woodside moved for summary judgment dismissal, arguing the action against her was barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. The Supreme Court denied her motion, but the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to Woodside because the plaintiff's action was barred by co-employee exclusivity and he did not suffer a 'grave injury.'

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity provisionsCo-employee liabilitySummary judgmentPersonal injuryCar accidentScope of employmentGrave injuryAppellate reviewReversal of order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Case No. ADJ7522823
Regular
Nov 21, 2016

JEFFREY GOTTLIEB vs. KITCHEN FOR EXPLORING FOODS, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and admitted lien claimant's Exhibits 15 and 16, overturning their exclusion by the trial judge. The Board found the exhibits were listed with sufficient specificity to avoid substantial prejudice to the defendant. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, deferring the final determination of the liens for Southern California Mental Health and Hepps Prescription Pharmacy. This decision aims to achieve substantial justice and prioritize a hearing on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersPre-Trial Conference StatementLien ClaimantPrimary Treating PhysicianCompromise and ReleasePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial JusticeAdmitted Exhibits
References
0
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,444 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