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. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re South Shore Tobacco & Candy Co.

The coassignees moved for an order settling their final account, fixing their commissions, and granting allowances to their attorneys and accountants. Arthur Kerner, Esq., representing himself and unsecured creditors, opposed the requested amounts, deeming them excessive and questioning the administration of the estate. The court had previously denied the motion and requested additional documentation and explanations. After reviewing new submissions and the case file, the court largely sided with the objector, significantly reducing the requested commissions and fees for the coassignees, their attorneys, and accountants based on established guidelines for economy and efficiency in estate administration.

Assignment for Benefit of CreditorsCommissionsAttorneys' FeesAccountants' FeesEstate AdministrationDebtor and Creditor LawJudicial ReviewCompensation GuidelinesFiduciary DutiesObjections to Fees
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. ADJ11665754
Regular
Mar 17, 2020

MELISSA RIVERA vs. AURORA LAS ENCINAS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order. A valid petition must address a "final" order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. In this case, the January 10, 2020 decision was a "Findings and Order," not a final award. Therefore, the defendant was not an aggrieved party from a final decision, and their petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationThreshold IssueFindings and OrderAwardAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. ADJ71 92587
Regular
Mar 04, 2016

RICHARD SMITH vs. HENDRICKSON TRUCKING, INC., AIG CLAIMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves Richard Smith's petition for reconsideration. The Board dismissed the petition because it was filed from a non-final order, which is not appealable. Reconsideration is only proper for final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. Procedural or evidentiary decisions made during the proceedings are considered interlocutory and not final. Therefore, Smith's petition, lacking specificity and challenging a non-final procedural order, was properly dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory procedural decisionEvidentiary decisionMandatory Settlement ConferenceApplicant representing himself
References
4
Case No. ADJ6977398
Regular
Jun 06, 2022

JOANN KROEPIL vs. VONS, ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an applicant's petition for reconsideration because it sought review of a non-final interlocutory order. The order in question merely continued a mandatory settlement conference, which is a procedural step and not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. As petitions for reconsideration can only be taken from final orders, the Board dismissed the petition. The Board also advised the applicant to seek removal rather than reconsideration for non-final orders in the future.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueThreshold IssueSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial HearingWCJ Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ4648071 (AHM 0111231)
Regular
May 05, 2010

JOYCE SIMON vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Joyce Simon's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights. The WCAB also denied her petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The decision relies on established legal definitions of "final" orders in workers' compensation proceedings. Removal was denied as reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision later issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderRemovalWCJ's Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
8
Case No. ADJ8558358
Regular
Sep 22, 2025

JOSE MEJIA vs. JB CRITCHLEY, INC., AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the defendant's prior appeals regarding the applicant's stipulated average weekly wage and permanent disability rate were exhausted and that the award was final as of October 2, 2024. The Board affirmed the imposition of penalties under Labor Code section 5814 and attorney fees under section 5814.5 due to the defendant's unreasonable delay in paying the final award. The defendant's arguments regarding seasonal employment and extrinsic mistake were rejected as the stipulated wages and findings were final and not adequately supported for setting aside. The original Findings and Award were rescinded and substituted to reflect the finality of the prior decision and the confirmed penalties and fees.

Labor Code section 5904Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardsemi-truck drivercervical spinethoracic spinelumbar spinehearing losspsychehypertension
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,830 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