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. ADJ8074655
Regular
Nov 23, 2015

MARY FITZPATRICK vs. CITY OF INGLEWOOD

This case involves applicant Mary Fitzpatrick seeking reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board decision that rescinded a WCJ's award. The Board is dismissing Fitzpatrick's petition because it is not taken from a final order, as the previous decision merely returned the case for further record development. Orders that return a matter for further proceedings are interim and not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900. Therefore, Fitzpatrick's petition is dismissed, and she must await a final WCJ decision before seeking further review.

Petition for ReconsiderationDecision after ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardWCJCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryLumbar SpineTemporary DisabilityInterim OrderFinal Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ13836041 (MF), ADJ13829431
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

Eriq Fitzpatrick vs. Fast Retailing USA, Inc.; The Hartford

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant Eriq Fitzpatrick's petition for reconsideration against Fast Retailing USA, Inc. and The Hartford. The Board found the petition to be successive, as the issue of venue had been previously decided against the applicant, who failed to file a timely writ of review. Additionally, the decision confirmed that the Board's action on the petition was timely under Labor Code section 5909 and that all parties received proper notice of transmission.

Successive PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 5909TransmissionEAMSRule 10600(b)Report and RecommendationNotice of TransmissionNewly AggrievedWrit of Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ9140416
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

MARIA FITZPATRICK vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the original award of temporary disability indemnity benefits to the applicant, Maria Fitzpatrick. This award was based on her lost earning capacity during summer months, as she was prevented from performing modified work due to her industrial injury. The majority found the applicant credible regarding her inability to secure summer employment due to her injury and the defendant's actions. One commissioner dissented, arguing the applicant failed to prove she applied for or would have worked during the summer months in question.

Temporary Disability IndemnityFindings of Fact and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityModified WorkMedical LeaveEarning CapacitySummer WorkIndustrial InjuryBurden of Proof
References
1
Case No. ADJ6865859 ADJ7472822
Regular
Oct 19, 2018

ELLY DAMIAN vs. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS PRESS, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award of 100% permanent disability. The WCAB found the prior award, which relied on Labor Code section 4662(b) for a "finding in accordance with the fact," was inconsistent with the recent *Fitzpatrick* decision. *Fitzpatrick* mandates that permanent total disability findings must follow the methodology outlined in Labor Code section 4660. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with *Fitzpatrick*, allowing for evaluation of previously unaddressed psychological factors affecting permanent disability.

WCABElly DamianCounty of San Mateocumulative traumabilateral upper extremitiescervical spinepsychepermanent total disability2005 Permanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code section 4660
References
3
Case No. ADJ480835 (MON 0345825 ADJ1647176 (MON 0345824)
Regular
Nov 29, 2018

RONNIE PHELPS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN

This case concerns Ronnie Phelps' workers' compensation claim for $100\%$ permanent disability due to multiple injuries and cumulative trauma. The defendant appeals the finding of total permanent disability, citing the *Fitzpatrick* decision and questioning the vocational expert's report and apportionment of a prior award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow for development of the record and correction of clerical errors. The matter is returned to the trial level for a new permanent disability award consistent with *Fitzpatrick*, deferring final determination on disability, attorney fees, and specific apportionment issues.

Welfare Appeals Boardcorrectional officerpermanent disabilityapportionmentcumulative traumavocational expertLabor Code section 4664(c)(1)clerical errorReconsiderationAgreed Medical Examiners
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wick v. WABASH HOLDING CORP.

Plaintiff Anthony M. Wick commenced a personal injury action against Wabash Holding Corp., alleging negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty after sustaining severe hand injuries while operating a Diehl moulding machine. The machine, manufactured by Diehl (now Wabash), allegedly lacked proper safety guards, which Plaintiff's expert stated were necessary to prevent injuries. However, the defense argued that the machine originally included these safety devices, which were later removed or modified by a third party, Fitzpatrick & Weller, Plaintiff's employer. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting summary judgment to Wabash, finding that the machine was not defective when it left the manufacturer and that Plaintiff was aware of the inherent dangers. District Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this Report and Recommendation, thus granting summary judgment for Wabash and dismissing the cross-claim against Fitzpatrick & Weller as moot.

Products LiabilityDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentMoulding MachineWorkplace InjuryIndustrial EquipmentThird-Party ModificationExpert TestimonyFederal Court Procedure
References
31
Case No. 04 Civ. 2592(MBM)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Mahoney v. J.J. Weiser & Co.

Defendants Michael J. Fitzpatrick and John Meehan sought an award of attorney's fees from plaintiffs under ERISA, following a prior grant of summary judgment in their favor regarding allegations of fiduciary duty breaches and kickbacks related to a health benefits plan. Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman recommended denying the motion for fees, to which the defendants filed objections. Upon de novo review, District Judge Victor Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, applying the five-factor test from Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan. The court found no sufficient evidence of culpability or bad faith by the plaintiffs in initiating the litigation and emphasized ERISA's policy to protect plan beneficiaries by not deterring good-faith claims, even if ultimately unsuccessful. Consequently, the District Court denied Defendants Fitzpatrick and Meehan's motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs.

ERISAAttorney's FeesMotion DenialFiduciary DutyPlan BeneficiariesBad FaithCulpabilityDeterrenceReport and RecommendationSummary Judgment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzpatrick v. Holimont, Inc.

A motion for leave to appeal was dismissed by the court. The dismissal was based on two primary grounds. Firstly, the order that was the subject of the appeal does not conclusively determine the legal proceeding, failing to meet the finality requirement stipulated by the Constitution. Secondly, the order does not align with the specific types of orders that are eligible for appeal, as outlined in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).

motion practiceleave to appealfinality of orderappellate procedureCPLR 5602constitutional interpretationjurisdictional groundsdismissalnon-final order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1996

Claim of Fitzpatrick v. Holimont, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Holimont, Inc. The claimant, a ski patrol member, was seriously injured in March 1994, leading to the initial determination that she was an employee, which was subsequently affirmed by the Board. The court considered factors such as Holimont's control over the work, method of payment, right to discharge, and the furnishing of equipment, noting that Holimont covered operational costs, provided workers' compensation, and retained disciplinary rights. Despite the absence of a direct salary, ski patrol members received free skiing privileges and other benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and Holimont, Inc.

Employer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionSki Patrol InjurySubstantial Evidence ReviewRight to Control EmploymentMethod of PaymentRight to DischargeFurnishing EquipmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2001

Fitzpatrick v. Chase Manhattan Bank

This case involves an appeal by Biordi, Inc., a defendant third-party plaintiff, and Adelhardt Construction Corp., a defendant, from an order that granted summary judgment to the third-party defendant, Golden Vale Construction Company, dismissing a third-party complaint. The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute "grave injuries" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, thus justifying the dismissal of the third-party action. The appellate court affirmed the decision, reiterating the requirement for a prima facie showing by the moving party that the plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The appeal by Adelhardt Construction Corp. was dismissed because that defendant was not aggrieved by the order.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewDismissal of ActionPrima Facie ShowingWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Insurance Law § 5120Court Procedure
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 20 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