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. ADJ2053200 (SFO 0448615)
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ALLAN LAU vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL RITZ-CARLTON SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding that the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary (P&S) on February 17, 2009, as reported by Dr. Tse. Despite recommendations for further conservative treatment and the applicant's eventual decision to undergo knee replacement surgery, the Board found no medical evidence of temporary disability after February 17, 2009. They concluded the WCJ erred in awarding temporary disability between February 17, 2009, and October 6, 2009, and again from November 30, 2009, granting the defendant's petition to terminate temporary disability as of February 17, 2009.

Permanent and Stationary (P&S)Temporary Total Disability (TTD)ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPetition to Terminate LiabilityMedical EvidenceViscosupplementationKnee Replacement SurgeryIndustrial InjuryTreating Physician
References
0
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a monetary sanction proposed against attorney Michael Linn by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Linn objected to the sanction, claiming he was denied due process due to a discrepancy in the service date of the WCAB's Notice of Intention. While the Notice stated a February 13, 2009 service date, Linn's evidence indicated actual service on February 17, 2009. Despite this, the WCAB acknowledges the discrepancy but notes Linn's objection was timely based on the actual service date. Consequently, the WCAB grants Linn an additional five days to file further objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonetary SanctionsMichael LinnEsq.Notice of IntentionGood CauseDue ProcessRequisite NoticeObjectionsTimely Response
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson-Stevens, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17

Patterson-Stevens (plaintiff) sought to vacate a July 24, 1995 judgment and amend its complaint against Local 17 (defendant). The original complaint sought an injunction to prevent arbitration of a grievance initiated by Local 17, which Patterson argued was untimely under a six-month statute of limitations. The court initially dismissed the case, lacking jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Patterson-Stevens then moved to vacate, arguing the complaint implicitly stated a claim for declaratory judgment. The court denied the motion, finding no clear error of law or manifest injustice in its prior decision. Furthermore, the proposed amendment for declaratory relief was deemed futile, as there was no legal precedent supporting a statute of limitations for grievance submission, unlike federal court actions.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrationStatute of LimitationsFederal JurisdictionInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Vacate JudgmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations Act
References
6
Case No. ADJ6796410
Regular
Jan 10, 2011

GREG BOATMAN vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

This case involves a firefighter seeking reconsideration of a denial of temporary disability benefits. The applicant underwent knee surgery on February 10, 2009, and testified about his recovery and need for light duty. Despite no explicit medical opinion stating temporary disability, the Appeals Board found a reasonable inference of temporary disability from February 10, 2009, to March 6, 2009, based on the surgery's nature and the applicant's reliance on his wife for assistance. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter for further proceedings, including determination of temporary disability and potential Labor Code Section 4850 benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityFirefighterOperative ReportOrthopedistAgreed Medical EvaluatorPartial Medial MeniscectomyChondroplastyMedial Femoral Condyle
References
4
Case No. 97 Civ. 7455(SS)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1998

Schepis v. LOCAL UNION NO. 17, UNITED BROTH.

The plaintiff, Benedetto Schepis, a former union official, sought reimbursement of legal defense costs from Local Union No. 17 and District Council of New York City after his criminal conviction was overturned. The Union removed the case from New York State Supreme Court to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the LMRDA and LMRA. Schepis moved to remand the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion to remand, finding no federal cause of action for reimbursement under the LMRDA or LMRA, and explicitly noting that LMRDA preserves state law claims. The court also awarded Schepis costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.

Removal jurisdictionFederal questionLabor-Management Disclosure and Reporting ActLabor Management Relations ActUnion fiduciary dutiesState law claimsWell-pleaded complaint ruleComplete preemptionAttorney's feesRemand
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Swank Associated Co.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1995

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Lexo

Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers ('Local 17') filed an action against John Lexo, a member of IUOE Local 463, seeking to collect a $5,000 fine. The fine was imposed by Local 17 after Lexo was found guilty of working in its jurisdiction without clearance, a violation of the IUOE constitution and Local 17 by-laws. Local 17 moved for summary judgment under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The court denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), concluding that Section 301(a) does not grant federal jurisdiction for a local union to sue an individual member of another local to enforce a monetary fine.

Labor Management Relations ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentUnion ConstitutionUnion FinesIntra-union DisputesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor Union LitigationInter-union Relations
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2009

Babenzien v. Town of Fenton

A plaintiff was injured on Fuller Road in the Town of Fenton when a low-hanging wire, owned by railroad companies, struck him. The day prior, Town of Fenton employees witnessed a wire break at the same location but only notified the railroad via voicemail without further action. The Supreme Court denied the Town's motion for summary judgment, citing actual notice despite a lack of prior written notice as required by local law. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the Town was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish an exception to the prior written notice requirement. The court found no evidence that the Town's employees created the dangerous condition, thus barring the plaintiff's claim against the Town.

Summary JudgmentPrior Written Notice LawMunicipal LiabilityHighway DefectRailroad Crossing AccidentAffirmative Act of NegligenceSpecial Use ExceptionAppellate Court ReversalPersonal InjuryDuty to Warn
References
5
Case No. ADJ2366705 (GOL 0098120)
Regular
Dec 20, 2009

MARY GARCIA vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, INNOVATIVE FRIEND SOLUTIONS

This case involved a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to her right elbow. The defendant sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) award of temporary disability benefits. The WCJ acknowledged an error in the end date of the temporary total disability period, correcting it from February 9, 2009, to February 2, 2009. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend this date, but otherwise affirmed the WCJ's original findings and award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryJuvenile Institutions OfficerModified WorkFindings and Award
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,390 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