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. ADJ7555685
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

RAHUL ROY vs. GALLO SALES COMPANY INC.

This case concerns the admissibility of a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports due to alleged violations of Labor Code section 4062.3 and AD Rule 35. The defendant, Gallo Sales Company, Inc., sent medical information and sub rosa films to the QME without timely providing copies or notice of objection rights to the applicant, Rahul Roy. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the QME's reports were inadmissible due to these ex parte communications, disqualifying the QME. The applicant is entitled to a new QME panel.

PQMEAD Rule 35Ex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3Medical informationNon-medical recordsSupplemental reportSub rosa filmsQME panelAdmissibility
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallo Wine Sales of New Jersey, Inc. v. Wholesale Wine Salesmen's Union, Local 18

This case concerns a labor dispute between a 'Company' and a 'Union' regarding the arbitrability of sales commission disputes. The parties had a 1975 collective bargaining agreement with an "Earning Guarantee" clause and an arbitration provision, which expired in 1978. After negotiations and a settlement agreement, a new 1979 agreement was formed without the "Earning Guarantee". The Union sought arbitration for commissions from May-November 1979, prompting the Company to seek an injunction against arbitration. The Company argued the dispute was not arbitrable under the 1975 agreement's exclusionary clause, or that any obligation to arbitrate was vitiated by the settlement, a strike, or the 1979 agreement. The Union cross-moved to compel arbitration. The court denied the Company's motion and granted the Union's motion, ruling that questions of contract termination, the arbitrability of the sales commission dispute under the 1975 agreement's provisions (including the exclusionary clause), and the defense of waiver were all matters for the arbitrator to decide, upholding the strong presumption in favor of arbitration in labor disputes.

Labor LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract InterpretationArbitrabilityInjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeLMRAWaiverSales Commissions
References
20
Case No. ADJ9012109
Regular
Jun 12, 2014

ROSALIO NAVA vs. JOSEPH GALLO CATTLE COMPANY, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Removal in the case of *Rosalio Nava v. Joseph Gallo Cattle Company; Seabright Insurance Company*. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as required by WCAB Rule 10843. Consequently, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental PetitionDenying RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportApplicantDefendant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. ADJ2710071 (STK 0215121)
Regular
Sep 11, 2017

WILLIAM FORD vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Gallo Glass Company's Petition for Removal. Gallo Glass sought disqualification of the administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging prejudice based on the WCJ's recommendation to deny their reimbursement request. The WCAB found that Gallo Glass failed to demonstrate the significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal under Labor Code section 5310. Furthermore, the petition did not meet the procedural requirements for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311, lacking the necessary sworn affidavit detailing the grounds for bias.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationAgreed Medical ExaminerReimbursementWCJ prejudiceLabor Code section 5310Labor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
1
Case No. ADJ2411163 (STK 0151867) ADJ4480333 (STK 0153205) ADJ2289502 (STK 0166931) ADJ3381209 (STK 0166939)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

JAMES HERNANDEZ vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gallo Glass Company's petition for reconsideration of a findings and award. The Board affirmed the finding of 57.5% permanent disability for bilateral shoulders, neck, and back injuries resulting from cumulative trauma, based on parties' stipulations and credible medical evidence. The Board found no error in the rating instructions, as they followed the parties' stipulation regarding Dr. Kucera's report. Finally, the Board concluded Gallo Glass failed to meet its burden of proof to establish overlap for apportionment under Labor Code § 4664, therefore no reduction for prior awards was granted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStipulationsCumulative TraumaApportionmentPermanent DisabilityDisability Evaluation UnitRating SpecialistLabor Code Section 4664
References
4
Case No. ADJ27 10071 (STK 0215121)
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

William Ford vs. Gallo Glass Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gallo Glass Company's petition for reconsideration of an award to William Ford. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to allow amendment of the claim to include sleep disorder and respiratory injuries (COPD), finding these were part of a single cumulative trauma injury. The Board also upheld the deferral of the employer's reimbursement claim against an Agreed Medical Examiner. The employer's arguments regarding separate claims and insufficient medical evidence were rejected.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAmendment of ApplicationCumulative TraumaSleep DisorderCOPDAgreed Medical ExaminerPetition for ReimbursementFindings of FactAward and Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ602790 (STK 0179563)
Regular
Jul 17, 2012

TRACEE MAWYER vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

This case involves Tracee Mawyer's workers' compensation claim against Gallo Glass Company for cumulative trauma injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's denial of injury to applicant's bilateral upper extremities, specifically carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board found Dr. Clayman's reports sufficiently supported an industrial injury to the upper extremities and awarded additional temporary disability for the period following carpal tunnel surgery. The case was returned for a new permanent disability rating for the upper extremity injuries.

Cumulative traumabilateral upper extremitiescarpal tunnel release surgerytemporary disabilitypermanent disability ratingreconsiderationDr. Claymanneck injuryshoulder injuryspine injury
References
0
Case No. STK 0204737
Regular
May 13, 2008

EDUARDO MACHADO vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gallo Glass Company's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award finding applicant sustained industrial injury to his face, right shoulder, and related issues like sleeping problems, anxiety, and vision. While temporary disability was awarded for a specific period, permanent disability was deferred pending further evaluation, and future medical care was deemed necessary. The majority adopted the WCJ's report, finding sufficient evidence to link the anxiety, sleeping, and vision issues to the head injury, despite the defendant's arguments to the contrary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryJanitorTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical CarePermanent DisabilitySleeping ProblemsAnxiety
References
0
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 8,098 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