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

People v. Felix

The defendant, Felix, was convicted of intentional manslaughter after fatally stabbing Melvin Martinez due to long-standing animosity. The trial court imposed a maximum 25-year sentence. Justice Tom, J.E., dissents from a decision that reduced Felix's sentence, arguing that there are no mitigating circumstances justifying the leniency. The dissent emphasizes the unprovoked and deliberate nature of the killing, Felix's unconvincing claims of self-defense, and his perceived lack of remorse, advocating for the affirmation of the original 25-year judgment. The document details the events leading to the stabbing, witness testimonies, and the medical examiner's findings, underscoring the severity of the crime.

Criminal LawManslaughterSentencingDissenting OpinionAggravated AssaultLack of RemorseSelf-Defense ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionIntentional Killing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.

An employee, Harold Derdiarian, was severely injured at a construction site in Mount Vernon when a driver, James Dickens, suffered an epileptic seizure, crashed through inadequate barricades, struck Derdiarian, and caused boiling liquid enamel to splatter on him. Derdiarian and his wife sued the contractor, Felix Contracting Corporation, and Con Edison for negligence. The trial court found Felix, Dickens, and Con Edison liable. Felix appealed, arguing Dickens's negligence was a superseding cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the question of proximate cause is for the fact-finder, and the risk of a vehicle entering an improperly protected work area was foreseeable, thus Dickens's negligence did not sever the causal link to Felix's liability.

Proximate CauseNegligenceConstruction Site AccidentEpileptic SeizureWorkplace SafetyIntervening CauseForeseeabilityAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLiability
References
11
Case No. ADJ2340078 (SDO 0304111) ADJ1779622 (SDO 0299855) ADJ6531135
Regular
May 16, 2014

FELIX SANDOVAL, vs. PACIFIC WASTE, dba ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, administered by CHARTIS,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Felix Sandoval's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, finding no grounds to overturn the prior decision. The specific reasons for the denial are detailed in the WCJ's report, which was incorporated by reference. Consequently, the applicant's request for a review and potential reversal of the original ruling was rejected.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJPACIFIC WASTEALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIESCHARTISADJ2340078SDO 0304111
References
0
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02960 [138 AD3d 920]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Felix v. Klee & Woolf, LLP

Luis Felix sued Klee & Woolf, LLP for legal malpractice, alleging the firm failed to pursue negligence and Labor Law claims against the City of New York and the Parks Department after he was injured while working at Van Cortlandt Park. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that Felix would not have prevailed in the underlying personal injury action. The court determined that Felix's work of seeding a cricket field did not fall under Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6), and neither the City nor the Parks Department had authority to supervise his work for claims under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Legal malpracticeSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionLabor LawPersonal injuryNotice of claimWorkers' Compensation benefitsConstruction safetyWorkplace accidentProximate cause
References
16
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08017 [192 AD3d 91]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Sandoval v. Leake & Watts Servs., Inc.

Eduardo Sandoval, a nonverbal autistic resident, suffered burns from a heated potato masher at a residential facility operated by Leake and Watts Services, Inc. (L&W). His co-guardians sued L&W, its employees Asialone Edwards and Wendell Chavies, alleging battery, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The Supreme Court denied L&W's and Edwards' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified this decision, dismissing claims against L&W based on respondeat superior, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training claims, and for Edwards' individual claims. The court highlighted L&W's failure to adequately check employee references and that the potential for abuse was foreseeable based on L&W's own training materials.

Negligent hiringNegligent retentionNegligent supervisionNegligent trainingRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentAutismResidential facilityEmployee misconductPropensity to commit injury
References
15
Case No. ADJ8855494
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

MARIA SANDOVAL vs. GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maria Sandoval's petition for reconsideration. Sandoval sought to reopen her case alleging knee surgery and temporary disability after previously stipulating to a 5% permanent disability award. The Board found no competent evidence to support Sandoval's new claims, as her physician had declared her permanent and stationary. Furthermore, the Board held that stipulations are binding and Sandoval failed to show good cause to set aside the award, though she remains within the five-year period to petition for new and further benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentWCJDr. HaberAmended StipulationsPetition to Reopen
References
2
Case No. ADJ8981807
Regular
Feb 04, 2019

ALEXANDRA SANDOVAL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECEPTION CENTER AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved Alexandra Sandoval's workers' compensation claim against the State of California. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sandoval's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's findings, giving great weight to their credibility determination of the witness. The decision hinges on the interpretation of Labor Code Section 5412, specifically the date an employee has knowledge of a cumulative injury being work-related. The Board found no substantial evidence to overturn the WCJ's determination regarding this knowledge.

Labor Code § 5412date of injurycumulative injurytemporary disabilitypermanent disabilitystatute of limitationscredibility determinationWCJ reportmedical advicereasonable diligence
References
9
Case No. ADJ9782943
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

Felix Contreras vs. County of Fresno

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Felix Contreras' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that Contreras' injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment due to the "Going and Coming Rule." The judge found Contreras' testimony regarding his actions at the time of the accident lacked credibility, citing conflicting accounts and evidence that the stated work purpose was already completed. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations due to observing the witness demeanor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Going and Coming RuleCourse and Scope of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationsApplicant TestimonyEmployer TestimonyPrior Findings of Fact
References
1
Case No. ADJ2340078 (SDO 0299855), ADJ1779622 (SDO 0304111), ADJ6531135
Regular
Dec 17, 2013

FELIX SANDOVAL vs. PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE by CHARTIS

A lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was granted after their lien was dismissed for failing to pay the required activation fee. This dismissal was based on Labor Code section 4903.06, which was subject to a federal preliminary injunction in *Angelotti Chiropractic v. Baker*. Due to the injunction, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the dismissal order. The case is now returned to the administrative law judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationLien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06Preliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerWCJRescindReturn to trial level
References
1
Case No. ADJ7905931 (MF) ADJ8066878
Regular
Jun 08, 2016

CARMEN FELIX vs. HORIZON HOBBY, THE HARTFORD

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original findings to establish that Carmen Felix sustained a cumulative injury to her mid and low back arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period from September 29, 2009, to September 29, 2010. This injury was found not to be barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim due to the employer's prior notice. The Board also amended the findings to award temporary disability from September 29, 2010, to the present, requiring reimbursement of the EDD lien, and ordered further medical treatment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBurden of ProofCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryPost-Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 94 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