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. ADJ9890148
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

Timothy Bedford vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case denies reconsideration of a permanent disability rating. The Board affirmed the use of Figure 15-19 of the AMA Guides, finding it permissible to use any chapter or method within the Guides that most accurately reflects impairment. The Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion was deemed substantial, as he explained how Figure 15-19 was used to derive a more accurate rating based on the applicant's specific spinal condition. The decision also distinguished the current case from prior panel decisions regarding the application of the AMA Guides and work limitations.

AMA Guidespermanent disability ratingrebuttable presumptionwhole person impairmentAlmaraz/Guzman IIclinical judgmentagreed medical evaluator (AME)Figure 15-19functional losssurgical-grade disc herniations
References
7
Case No. ADJ8832609
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

ROBERTA FIGURES vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - IHSS, legally uninsured, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing her case for lack of prosecution. The applicant claimed injury as an in-home caregiver, but the case was dismissed after the applicant failed to properly object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. The majority found that the applicant's arguments for reconsideration, including her counsel's alleged efforts and procedural errors, were insufficient. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing that the applicant's counsel had made demonstrable efforts to prosecute the claim by subpoenaing medical records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseLack of ProsecutionRule 10582In-home caregiverLower extremitiesNeckTrunkBack
References
0
Case No. ADJ4118785
Regular
Jun 29, 2010

MICHAEL LEWIS vs. REX MOORE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, CHARTIS COSTA MESA

The Appeals Board rescinded a prior award due to a due process violation. The defendant employer was denied an opportunity to rebut the assumed 4.7% annual SAWW increase used to calculate the applicant's attorney's fee. The Board returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing the defendant to present rebuttal evidence on the SAWW issue. The Board expressed no opinion on the appropriateness of the 4.7% SAWW figure itself.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityCommutationAttorney's FeeState Average Weekly Wage (SAWW)Disability Evaluation Unit (DEU)Permanent and Stationary (P\&S) dateIndemnity
References
0
Case No. ADJ7908593
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

LA WANNA MONTGOMERY vs. REACH LEARNING ACADEMY CENTER, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a discrepancy in the applicant's average weekly wage and temporary disability rate. The defendant challenged the WCJ's calculation, highlighting a significant difference between the applicant's tax return and evidence presented at trial. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further proceedings to resolve this discrepancy, which impacts the applicant's credibility. The WCJ must have the applicant explain the differing earnings figures.

Average Weekly WageTemporary Disability RateEarnings DiscrepancyFederal Tax ReturnW-2s1099sApplicant CredibilityIndustrial InjuryFibula FractureCEO
References
2
Case No. ADJ10102441
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

MARTHA ALAS vs. WOOD RANCH BARBECUE & GRILL, SENTRY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sentry Insurance's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award based on a stipulated average weekly wage. Sentry argued the stipulation was based on a mutual mistake of fact regarding the calculation of the applicant's average weekly wage. The Board found no mutual mistake, as both parties agreed to the figure, and Sentry's subsequent realization of error was unilateral. Therefore, good cause to set aside the stipulation and award was not established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeAverage Weekly WageStipulationMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseTemporary Total DisabilityAttorney's Fees
References
0
Case No. ADJ8517780
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

DEANNA ROBBINS vs. SUSANVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration. The district challenged the calculation of the applicant's average weekly earnings, arguing her probationary status should reduce the figure. However, the Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding, determining that the applicant's earnings capacity was properly calculated based on her actual earnings from multiple employers prior to the injury. The Board emphasized that earning capacity is a dynamic assessment, not limited to the applicant's immediate employment status.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusanville Elementary School DistrictDeanna RobbinsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardcumulative injuryupper extremitiesaverage weekly earningsearning capacityLabor Code section 4453(c)(4)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clarendon National Insurance v. TIG Reinsurance Co.

Petitioner Clarendon National Insurance Company sought to confirm a partial arbitration award correcting a mathematical error and modify a prior judgment, while Respondent TIG Reinsurance Company cross-moved to vacate the award. The court addressed whether arbitrators could correct a mathematical error in a previously issued and partially confirmed award, applying exceptions to the functus officio doctrine. Given the acknowledged mistake by the arbitrators and TIG's awareness of the incorrect figure, the court found extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, Clarendon's motion was granted, the corrected partial award confirmed, and the judgment modified, denying TIG's cross-motion, to ensure substantial justice.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActFunctus Officio DoctrineRule 60(b) FRCPArbitration Award ConfirmationJudgment ModificationMathematical Error CorrectionReinsurance AgreementJudicial ReviewEquitable Relief
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mazyck v. Long Island Railroad

The court denies defendant LIRR's motion for reargument regarding the discounting of a future pain and suffering award, affirming that the $130,500.00 figure is already a present value sum. The individual defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's state-law claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under FELA is granted, citing the Supreme Court's Finley decision and the inapplicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to pre-1990 cases. However, LIRR's request to convert its cross-claims for contribution against these individual defendants into third-party claims is granted based on ancillary jurisdiction. Finally, LIRR's alternate request for a new trial is denied as the court found no prejudice.

FELAFederal Employers’ Liability ActSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent-Party JurisdictionAncillary JurisdictionReargument MotionRemittiturFuture Pain and SufferingContribution ClaimsThird-Party Claims
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goetz v. Kunstler

This defamation action was initiated by Bernhard Goetz against Carol Communications, Inc., and William M. Kunstler, stemming from statements in Kunstler's autobiography, "My Life as a Radical Lawyer." Goetz alleged he was defamed by descriptions like "murderous vigilante" and claims of "venomous feelings against black people" related to the 1984 subway shooting. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the statements were protected opinions or true. The court, treating Goetz as a public figure, applied free speech principles and found the statements to be constitutionally protected expressions of opinion, especially given Kunstler's disclosed bias and the provision of underlying facts. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

DefamationSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentPublic FigureFreedom of SpeechOpinion vs. FactActual MaliceAutobiographyRacial BiasSubway Shooting
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 28 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