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. 2014-1493 W CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2016

People v. Oliva (Edward)

Edward P. Oliva appealed convictions for driving while ability impaired and two counts of passing a red signal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal concerning passing a red signal as abandoned due to lack of raised issues. The judgment convicting Oliva of driving while ability impaired was affirmed. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, noting that Oliva consumed alcohol, exhibited signs of impairment such as glassy eyes and slurred speech, fled an accident scene at high speed, and refused a breath test. Oliva's defense, attributing his condition to fatigue and shock, was deemed meritless by the court.

Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI)Vehicle and Traffic Law ViolationsAppellate Review of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceRefusal to Submit to Chemical TestConsciousness of GuiltLesser-Included OffensePolice ChaseOperating a Motor Vehicle Under InfluenceTraffic Accident
References
19
Case No. AHM 129038
Regular
Jul 19, 2007

FRANCISCO OLIVA vs. LAIDLAW TRANSIT COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves a bus driver, Francisco Oliva, who claimed an industrial injury to his right hand and upper extremity. The defendant, Laidlaw Transit Company, sought reconsideration of the initial award, arguing the injury was personal and not work-related, and challenging reimbursement to the Employment Development Department (EDD). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirmed the finding of industrial injury, but amended the award to remove the reimbursement requirement to the EDD.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLaidlaw Transit CompanyInsurance Company of the State of PennsylvaniaFrancisco Olivaindustrial injuryright handupper right extremitybus driverassaultpersonally motivated
References
0
Case No. 534352
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisco Leon

Claimant Francisco Leon, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained on January 30, 2020, after falling from a scaffold. The employer, Monadnock Construction Inc., and its carrier disputed the claim, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The carrier appealed the Board's ruling, contending it lacked substantial evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board holds broad authority in factual determinations, including witness credibility and drawing reasonable inferences from evidence. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Leon's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsScaffold AccidentWork-related InjuryAccidental Injury ClaimAppellate ReviewFactual DeterminationsSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliva v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local One

This action stems from an employment dispute involving Carmine Oliva, his labor union Local One, and his former employer Capitol, along with union Vice-President Louis Damato. Oliva sued the defendants, alleging false representations by Local One leading him to waive arbitration, and breaches of the duty of fair representation and contract. He also claimed Capitol breached the collective bargaining agreement. The court asserted federal jurisdiction over Oliva's claims under the duty of fair representation and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding Oliva's claims lacked merit because he admitted to the theft that led to his termination, thus negating his claim of detrimental reliance. The defendants' request for litigation costs was denied.

Employment DisputeLabor LawDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionBreach of ContractFraudEmployee Termination
References
10
Case No. ADJ9919242
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

JAMES KIRCHER vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that a firefighter sustained an industrial injury to his heart and circulatory system when he experienced atrial arrhythmias during a mandatory work treadmill test. Although the Agreed Medical Examiner initially stated he wouldn't term the event an "injury," he later opined the arrhythmias were work-related and caused in part by job stress, leading to the applicant being taken off work. The Board concluded this constituted an injury under the Labor Code, resulting in temporary disability.

Atrial arrhythmiasTreadmill stress testAgreed Medical ExaminerWork mandated health checkIndustrial injuryTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityOccupational medicineCardiologyLabor Code section 3208
References
0
Case No. ADJ9298777
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

JUAN FRANCISCO LARIOS vs. VALLEY FLEET CLEAN, SUSSEX INSURANCE, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Juan Francisco Larios' petition for reconsideration of a May 31, 2017 decision. This grant is to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved to ensure a just decision. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco and not through district offices or e-filing. The WCAB notes that trial-level documents unrelated to the reconsideration should still be filed as usual, but settlement documents require prompt notification to the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Rules of the Administrative Director
References
0
Case No. ADJ8540632
Regular
Oct 15, 2013

FRANCISCO MEDINA vs. SCRIPPS HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration in the case of Francisco Medina v. Scripps Health. The applicant alleged a psychiatric injury, but the employer successfully argued the defense of good faith personnel actions under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). The Board adopted the WCJ's findings, finding the employer's actions, including performance improvement forms and issues related to English proficiency, were lawful, non-discriminatory, and made in good faith to address job performance deficiencies. Credible employer testimony and evidence supported these findings, leading to the denial of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.psychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionslabor code section 3208.3(h)Rolda v Pitney Bowespredominant causelawful
References
4
Case No. ADJ7813341
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

FRANCISCO LAZO vs. QUALITY STAFFING, ZURICH

This case concerns Francisco Lazo's workers' compensation claim against Quality Staffing and Zurich. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Lazo's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed more than 20 days after the WCJ's decision was personally served. California law requires such petitions to be *received* by the WCAB within the 20-day timeframe, not merely mailed. As the petition was untimely, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationPersonally ServedTimeliness20-Day LimitJurisdictionalWCJ DecisionWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)
References
4
Case No. ADJ1926394 (POM 0267363)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

Francisco Costa vs. Ralph's Grocery Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a $100\%$ permanent disability award to Francisco Costa. Defendant Ralph's Grocery Company argued that $20\%$ of the disability should be apportioned to Costa's pre-existing congenital spinal stenosis, citing medical opinions. The Board found that the medical record justified apportionment but lacked sufficient detail on the basis for the physicians' opinions. Consequently, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level for further development of the medical record regarding apportionment.

WCABRalph's Grocery CompanyFrancisco Costapermanent disabilityapportionmentcongenital spinal stenosiscauda equina syndromedecompression surgeryQMEsubstantial medical evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ7390255
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

DARNELLA SCOTT STREET vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision allowing a lien claim for an H-Wave machine. The applicant found more relief with the H-Wave than a TENS unit. The Agreed Medical Examiner opined that while not convinced the H-Wave was superior to other inferential stimulation units, it was superior to a TENS unit. The WCAB found the lien claimant met its burden of proof regarding the medical necessity of the H-Wave.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictAthens AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgesubstantial evidenceElectronic Waveform LabsH-WaveTENS unitinferential stimulation unit
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 456 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