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. ADJ10155146
Regular
Aug 03, 2017

FIDEL RIOS (Deceased), MARIO RIOS, YESENIA RIOS vs. LAMONICA'S PIZZA DOUGH COMPANY, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied a petition for removal filed by the applicant. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. Furthermore, the Board determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision be issued later. The applicant can address discovery concerns with the WCJ during trial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyAME reportsfurther discoverytrialADJ10155146Anaheim District Office
References
2
Case No. ADJ 1478335 (SAC 0317387)
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

GILROY SMITH (Deceased), ILIANA SMITH, ET AL. vs. RIO LINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a deceased food service worker, Gilroy Smith, whose dependents, Iliana Smith et al., sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award after the employer, Rio Linda Unified School District, and the applicants filed petitions. The WCAB ultimately affirmed the original award, which found the admitted industrial injury caused 39% permanent disability and death due to an aggravation of hepatitis C. The employer's contention that the injury did not cause death was rejected, and the applicants' claim for temporary disability was also affirmed implicitly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityDeath BenefitsHepatitis CQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryFood Service WorkerTemporary Disability IndemnitySubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 534723
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Justo Rios

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Justo Rios was injured at a construction site and sought benefits, naming Rockaway Contracting Corp. as his employer. Rockaway disputed this and, during its application for Workers' Compensation Board review, attempted to introduce new evidence via affidavits from personnel of another potential employer. The Board refused to consider the new evidence, citing Rockaway's failure to adequately explain why it was not presented earlier before the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ), and affirmed the WCLJ's decision holding Rockaway responsible. Rockaway appealed the denial of reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious conduct or abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider the belatedly submitted evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate ReviewBoard ReviewReconsideration DenialAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of EvidenceAffidavit SubmissionConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Rios v. Rockaway Contr. Corp.

Claimant Justo Rios was injured in 2018 while working at a construction site and filed a workers' compensation claim, naming Rockaway Contracting Corp. as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Rockaway to be the responsible employer. Rockaway sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board and attempted to introduce new evidence in the form of affidavits, but the Board refused to consider it, citing Rockaway's failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the late submission. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. Rockaway's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider the new evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousLate Evidence SubmissionConstruction Site InjuryProcedural Due Process
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Deusen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Petitioners Duane and Barbara Van Deusen appealed the denial of their request for apportionment of attorney's fees against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). USF&G was the workers' compensation and liability insurer for Duane's employer, Goettle, and its lien was satisfied from the Van Deusens' third-party award for personal injuries. Special Term had denied the apportionment based on the precedent set in *France v Abstract Tit. Div. of Tit. Guar. Co.*, which held that when the lienor is also the employer's liability insurer, the attorney's efforts are considered adverse, extinguishing the contribution obligation. This court reconsidered the *France* ruling, deeming it unfair to injured plaintiffs and contrary to the legislative intent behind the Workers' Compensation Law amendment regarding lienor contribution to litigation costs. The court found no legal or logical reason to differentiate an injured employee's recovery based on whether the employer's compensation and liability insurance were with one or two carriers. Consequently, the court reversed the Special Term's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing that litigation costs be calculated based on the direct benefit the lienor received from the recovery through lien recoupment, with an additional consideration for any wrongfully withheld compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney's Fees ApportionmentInsurance LienThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityIndemnificationContributionDole-Dow DoctrineAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent Reconsideration
References
8
Case No. ADJ7979998
Regular
Sep 09, 2013

JOSE OCOTOXTLE vs. McDONALD'S, US FIDELITY & GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

This case involves US Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company seeking reconsideration of a Compromise and Release Agreement approved in a separate workers' compensation claim. US Fidelity argues the judge exceeded authority by approving a settlement that did not account for apportionment with a McDonald's claim where they were the insurer. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, holding that the settlement of a separate cumulative trauma claim against a different employer does not affect US Fidelity's liability for applicant's McDonald's injury. The Board noted US Fidelity can pursue contribution proceedings under Labor Code section 5500.5(h) if needed.

US Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance CompanyMcDonald'sJose OcotoxtleLiberty MutualDarden RestaurantsOlive Gardencumulative trauma injuryAugust 212009 industrial injuryADJ7979998
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2012

Rios v. Town of Huntington Housing Authority

Maritza Rios, a Section 8 housing participant, faced termination from the program after a felony assault conviction. An informal hearing officer initially ruled against termination, citing self-defense and her good character. However, the Town of Huntington Housing Authority (PHA) overturned this decision, claiming the hearing officer misapplied regulations and improperly considered mitigating circumstances. Rios sought a preliminary injunction in federal court, alleging due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1983. The Court denied her motion, stating that the case was better suited for an Article 78 proceeding in state court and that Rios had received adequate pre-deprivation process. The Court expressed skepticism about the PHA's rationale but maintained that assessing the PHA's decision's validity was beyond its current role.

Section 8 HousingHousing Choice Voucher ProgramDue ProcessPreliminary InjunctionArticle 78 ProceedingPublic Housing AuthorityAdministrative LawFelony AssaultTermination of BenefitsConstitutional Law
References
54
Case No. ADJ6951586
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

MICHAEL MICHAELSON (Deceased) vs. JF SHEA, AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order regarding a deceased worker's settlement. The Petitioner, Riverside County Department of Child Support Services, sought to satisfy a child support lien from the settlement allocated to dependents. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Labor Code §4700 dictates that only accrued and unpaid compensation is payable to dependents, and a child support lien under Labor Code §4903(e) attaches only to such benefits. As there were no accrued benefits owed to the deceased applicant, the child support lien could not be satisfied from the death benefit settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportRiverside County Department of Child Support ServicesState Bar NumbersWCAB Rule 10498SanctionsADJ6951586DeceasedJF Shea
References
1
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 632 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