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. ADJ884555 (SRO 0124659)
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

JEANNE HENDERSON vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant sought reconsideration of a finding that her penalty petition was settled by a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. She argued the C&R only addressed specific penalties, excluding her claim for failure to advance permanent disability. The majority ruled that Labor Code section 5814(c) presumes all accrued penalty claims are resolved by a C&R unless expressly excluded, and the language here did not meet that standard. Consequently, the applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied.

WCABADJ884555SRO 0124659ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseOACRPenalty PetitionLabor Code Section 4650(b)Labor Code Section 5814(c)
References
0
Case No. ANA 0393385
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

JERRY MADRID vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior award. The Board found that applicant's claims for penalties under Labor Code section 5814 were barred by subdivision (c) because penalties accrued prior to settlement and were not expressly excluded. Consequently, the Board also denied a section 5813 attorney fee, as there was no finding of bad faith.

Labor Code section 5814unreasonable delaypenaltymedical treatmentlien claimantStipulations With Request for AwardLabor Code section 5813attorney feestreating physicianpre-designation
References
5
Case No. ADJ13831018
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

Toshi Kuwata vs. Implant Direct, LLC, Ace American Insurance Company, Sedgwick CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Employment Development Department's (EDD) petition for reconsideration. The Board found the EDD was not aggrieved because its lien claim was not adjudicated and the award for temporary disability expressly excluded periods for which the EDD could assert a credit. The EDD's lien can still be adjudicated separately, and the defendants are advised to resolve the credit to avoid further interest.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationEmployment Development DepartmentAggrieved PartyLien ClaimantFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityEDD CreditUnemployment Insurance CodeStipulation
References
0
Case No. ADJ1884066
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

RICHARD REED vs. BAYSIDE INSULATION AND CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release where the settlement expressly excluded future Labor Code section 139.5 benefits. The defendant argued this exclusion was an error, as they intended to settle vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found the exclusion unnecessary and legally inconsequential as Labor Code section 139.5 did not apply to this applicant's injury date, and job displacement benefits are covered under a different section.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationsupplemental job displacement benefitsLabor Code section 4658.5future benefitsindustrial injuryupper extremitiesinsulator
References
0
Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Aug 03, 2010

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP., MATRIX SAN JOSE

This case concerns applicant Balgovind Sharma's claim for workers' compensation penalties against Lam Research Corp. and Matrix San Jose for alleged unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment. Following a stipulation on August 4, 2009, which agreed to authorize specific treatments, applicant sought penalties for sixteen prior, unaddressed treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that applicant did not "expressly exclude" penalty claims from the stipulation as required by Labor Code section 5814(c). Consequently, all accrued penalty claims, including those not specifically mentioned in the stipulation, were conclusively presumed resolved by the stipulation.

ADJ4387448Lam Research Corp.Matrix San JoseBalgovind SharmaReconsiderationStipulationMedical treatment authorizationPetition for PenaltyUnreasonable DelaySection 5814(c)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Department of Social Services

The petition, grounded on section 79-a of the Social Services Law, sought increased salaries for social service personnel with suitable graduate training. Petitioner was employed by the Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The statute, effective January 1, 1966, expressly excludes the Welfare Department of the City of New York if it has a satisfactory alternative plan. The New York City Department of Welfare Procedure 65-41, providing for differentials for postgraduate courses, was deemed a reasonable exercise of administrative authority and consistent with the statute. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 4, 1970, was unanimously reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Social Services LawSalary DifferentialsGraduate TrainingAdministrative AuthorityStatutory InterpretationPetition DismissedNew York City Welfare DepartmentEmployee BenefitsPublic Sector EmploymentStatutory Exclusion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryam Hills Central School District No. 1 v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves an appeal concerning the obligations of the State Insurance Fund under insurance policies. The Bryam Hills Central School District No. 1 sought a declaratory judgment to compel the State Insurance Fund to defend actions initiated by Dorothy G. Caruolo. The initial Supreme Court judgment had granted summary judgment to the school district, mandating the State Insurance Fund to provide a defense. The appellate court modified this judgment, affirming the State Insurance Fund's duty to defend the first Caruolo action due to sufficient general negligence allegations, thereby invoking policy coverage. However, the court reversed the requirement to defend two other actions seeking salary and benefits, as these claims were rooted in contract and expressly excluded by the policy, negating any duty to defend in those specific instances.

Insurance Policy ObligationsDuty to DefendDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ExclusionWorkers' Compensation ImplicationsNegligence ClaimsInsurance Coverage DisputeSupreme Court Appeal
References
4
Case No. 10 N.Y.3d 609 (2008), 891 N.E.2d 279, 861 N.Y.S.2d 246
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2008

Pachter v. BERNARD HODES

Elaine Pachter, a former vice-president for Bernard Hodes Group, Inc., whose compensation was commission-based, sued her former employer in federal court, alleging illegal deductions from her wages under Labor Law § 193. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals concerning the scope of protections under article 6 of the Labor Law. The first question was whether an "executive" is considered an "employee" for purposes of Labor Law sections 190 and 193. The second question concerned when a commission is "earned" and becomes a "wage" in the absence of a written agreement. The Court of Appeals held that executives are employees under Labor Law article 6, except where expressly excluded. Regarding the second question, the Court ruled that the timing of when a commission is earned is governed by the parties' express or implied agreement, or by the default common-law rule if no agreement exists. The court found an implied agreement between Pachter and Hodes, making the deductions permissible.

Employment LawLabor LawWage DeductionsCommissionsExecutive Employee StatusImplied ContractNew York Court of AppealsCertified QuestionsEmployer-Employee AgreementCommon Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longstreet Associates, L.P. v. Bevona

The case involves sixteen security guards dismissed from their jobs at the General Motors Building in Manhattan. Plaintiffs, Pembrook Management, Inc. (PMI), Longstreet Associates, L.P., and Corporate Properties Investors (CPI), sought to enjoin an arbitration proceeding initiated by the Union, Local 32B-32J of the Service Employees International Union. Plaintiffs argued the security guards were employed by a cleaning and maintenance contractor, Temco/Spartan, and thus expressly excluded from coverage under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (RAB Agreement). The Union contended that PMI was a joint employer with Temco/Spartan, meaning the guards were covered by the RAB Agreement's "work preservation provision." The court, after examining factors for joint employer status, found sufficient evidence that PMI had immediate control over the security guards in areas such as hiring, discipline, and day-to-day supervision. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order, ruling that PMI, Longstreet, and CPI were obligated to arbitrate the dispute under the RAB Agreement.

Joint EmployerArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPreliminary InjunctionLabor RelationsSecurity GuardsUnion DisputeContract InterpretationWork PreservationSecond Circuit
References
16
Case No. ADJ394613 (VNO 0530712) ADJ2266356 (VNO 0530710)
Regular
Apr 01, 2016

MARIA ESTRELLA vs. NATIONAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal to a lien claimant after a judge excluded four exhibits. The WCAB found that two of the excluded exhibits, representing certifications and financial interest notifications, were sufficiently listed on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement. Therefore, the WCAB admitted these two exhibits into evidence, amending the judge's prior order. The remainder of the judge's order, excluding the other two exhibits, was affirmed.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJExhibitsPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPre-Trial Conference StatementServiceNotification of Certification
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 598 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