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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. ADJ763837 (RDG 0127177) ADJ3894868 (RDG 0129247) ADJ2280504 (RDG 0129248)
Regular
Mar 29, 2011

JONI LAMKIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding applicant sustained three industrial injuries. The Board found the original decision flawed due to inadequate reasoning by the judge and the Qualified Medical Examiner regarding disability ratings under *Almaraz/Guzman*. The Court rescinded the prior order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, citing insufficient explanation for deviation from AMA Guides and a lack of clear findings on separate injuries. This decision mandates that future reports and awards must provide detailed justifications for disability ratings and clearly delineate findings for distinct injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJoni LamkinDepartment of TransportationState Compensation Insurance FundADJ763837ADJ3894868ADJ2280504ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Guzman v. Jay

Plaintiff Noel Jackson Guzman filed a Section 1983 action against New York City Police Officer Brian Jay, alleging false arrest and excessive force stemming from a 2009 incident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Guzman, awarding him significant compensatory and punitive damages for false arrest and excessive force. Officer Jay subsequently moved for a new trial, remittitur, and judgment as a matter of law. The court denied motions for a new trial and remittitur, but granted judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest claim due to qualified immunity. This decision was based on the jury's finding that Officer Jay reasonably, though possibly mistakenly, believed Guzman was fighting at the time of arrest.

False ArrestExcessive Force42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityJury VerdictRemittiturNew Trial MotionJudgment as a Matter of LawPolice MisconductPersonal Injury
References
43
Case No. ADJ3192506
Regular
Oct 02, 2012

CARLOS GUZMAN vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES

This case involves an applicant who sustained multiple injuries, including to his brain, following a fall. Initially awarded 90% permanent partial disability, the Appeals Board reconsidered the decision. After reviewing medical and vocational evidence, particularly the credible testimony of the applicant's wife, the Board found the applicant unable to compete in the open labor market. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior award and issued a new decision finding the applicant sustained 100% permanent total disability.

Permanent Total DisabilityReconsiderationApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorNeuropsychological EvaluationVocational RehabilitationQualified Medical EvaluatorActivities of Daily LivingOpen Labor MarketCredibility Finding
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. ADJ940068
Regular
Jun 22, 2010

JUAN GUZMAN vs. PEAK HARVESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding that applicant Juan Guzman did not sustain an industrial injury. Guzman claimed he contracted Valley Fever due to his agricultural employment in 2002. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found defendant's medical expert's opinion more credible. This expert concluded that the incubation period of Valley Fever, and the applicant's symptom onset in 2006, made an industrial exposure in 2002 unlikely. The Board found applicant failed to prove a connection between his condition and his employment, and did not demonstrate a dormant infection originating from his work.

CoccidioidomycosisValley FeverPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMedical EvidenceIncubation PeriodDormant InfectionPro PerStipulations and IssuesFindings and Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ9387304
Regular
Jan 20, 2023

Juan Guzman vs. ADP TOTAL SOURCE, INC./DURACITE, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision finding a 45% permanent partial disability for a 2013 injury. Applicant contended the injury caused permanent total disability, not partial. The Board granted reconsideration and the parties subsequently reached a settlement via a Compromise and Release agreement. The Board rescinded the original decision and remanded the case to the WCJ to consider the settlement, reserving judgment on the merits of the reconsideration petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJuan GuzmanADP Total SourceHelmsman Management Serviceslumbar spine injuryhead injurypsyche injurygranite edge fabricatorpermanent partial disabilitypermanent total disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1992

Claim of Stokes v. Permanente

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury after being struck by a car while crossing a street from a parking lot to her workplace. This decision and an amended decision were subsequently appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the injury occurred while the claimant was entering the employment premises, thus arising out of and in the course of her employment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCompensable InjuryGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. ADJ2802696 (STK 0206161)
Regular
Mar 23, 2009

PAM ELLIOTT vs. MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The applicant, injured in 2004, argued the 2005 permanent disability schedule inadequately addressed her diminished future earning capacity. Citing its recent en banc decisions in *Almaraz/Guzman* and *Ogilvie*, the WCAB found these decisions established that both the AMA Guides and the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) portions of the 2005 Schedule are rebuttable. The case was remanded for further consideration of the applicant's arguments in light of these binding precedents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability Rating2005 ScheduleAMA GuidesDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational Rehabilitation ExpertRebuttable PresumptionStare DecisisAlmaraz/Guzman
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 22,966 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