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. ADJ6562717, ADJ7394430
Regular
Oct 14, 2013

MYUNG FIRUS vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

This case involves Myung Firus as the applicant against Hawaiian Gardens Casino and Travelers Indemnity Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an order dismissing the petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal occurred because the petitioner voluntarily withdrew the petition they had filed. Therefore, the Board is not ruling on the merits of the original September 3, 2013 decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalHawaiian Gardens CasinoTravelers Indemnity CompanyADJ6562717ADJ7394430Long Beach District OfficeWithdrawn PetitionSeptember 3 2013 decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ7350346
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

TENNE PHAM vs. HAWAIIAN GARDEN CASINO, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This order denies Tenne Pham's Petition for Removal in a workers' compensation case against Hawaiian Garden Casino and Travelers Insurance Company. The Appeals Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge, denying the removal. Additionally, the Board ordered a correction of a clerical error in a previous order to remove one of the case numbers from the caption. Therefore, the Petition for Removal is denied, and the prior order is amended.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeClerical ErrorDenying RemovalCorrecting Clerical ErrorStrike Case NumberOrder Denying RemovalADJ3545303ADJ7350346
References
0
Case No. ADJ9675888
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

XIAO WEN LU vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Xiao Wen Lu's Petition for Reconsideration in this case against Hawaiian Gardens Casino and its insurer. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report and reasoning. They gave significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, as the judge observed the witness's demeanor, and found no substantial evidence to overturn it. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ9675888Hawaiian Gardens CasinoInsurance Company of the Westadministrative law judgedenial of reconsiderationwitness demeanor
References
1
Case No. ADJ9674255
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

YAN LIU vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns an applicant who alleges both orthopedic and psychiatric injuries from her employment as a casino dealer. While the Board affirmed the finding of orthopedic injury, it deferred the issue of psychiatric injury. The Board clarified that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) does not bar psychiatric claims arising directly from employment events, but it requires a medical apportionment of causation between direct psychiatric injury and injury as a consequence of physical injury. The matter was returned to the trial level for further development of the record regarding the psychiatric injury and its apportionment.

AOE/COELabor Code Section 4660.1(c)psychiatric injurycompensable consequenceviolent actsubstantial medical evidencetreating physicianQMEcontinuous traumaharassment
References
10
Case No. ADJ1136158 (LBO 0381365)
Regular
Apr 10, 2008

DARIO MENDEZ vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CARD CLUB, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous finding, and found that applicant Dario Mendez sustained an industrial injury to his low back and right leg. The WCAB determined that a lifting incident on November 15, 2005, at the Hawaiian Gardens Card Club, contributed to a new injury despite Mendez's pre-existing back condition. They found the applicant's explanation for the delay in reporting the injury credible, and that the evidence supported a new injury rather than merely an exacerbation of a prior condition. The WCAB deferred all other issues, including the extent of the injury and compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJLow Back InjuryRight Leg InjuryPre-existing ConditionAggravationExacerbation
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02942 [205 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Matter of Casino Towing Serv., Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer & Worker Protection

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied a petition by Casino Towing Service, Inc. to annul a determination by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP). DCWP had suspended Casino Towing's tow truck license for three months due to violations of insurance coverage rules, specifically for modifying its policy to reduce coverage below mandated amounts and failing to report the change within 10 days. The Appellate Division found DCWP's determination to be rationally supported by the record and not arbitrary and capricious. The court further held that Casino Towing did not have a constitutional due process right to a hearing, as there is no property interest in the renewal of an expired license and adequate notice and opportunity for written submissions were provided. The penalty was also deemed not to shock the conscience.

Tow Truck License SuspensionInsurance Coverage ViolationsAdministrative Code ViolationsDue Process RightsLicense RenewalAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousPenalty Shock the ConscienceCPLR Article 78DCWP Determination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1990

Del Casino v. City of New Rochelle

This case details an appeal by plaintiffs, including police officer Anthony Del Casino, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the City of New Rochelle's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss affirmative defenses. Del Casino alleged negligence by the City in failing to properly maintain a footbridge, leading to personal injuries, and cited violations of the City Charter and Highway Law §§ 230 and 251. The Appellate Court modified the order by denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and reinstating the complaint, finding a valid cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss the City's fourth affirmative defense, which was deemed inapplicable to a statutory cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e.

Personal Injury DamagesNegligence ActionSummary Judgment MotionAffirmative Defenses DismissalPolice Officer InjuryMunicipal NegligenceFootbridge MaintenanceGeneral Municipal Law § 205-eHighway Law ViolationsComplaint Reinstatement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2006

Claim of Cushion v. Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Claimant, an employee of Brooklyn Botanic Garden, sustained an injury after falling on a broken sidewalk in a public parking lot adjacent to her workplace while commuting home. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the case as a work-related injury, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, reasoning that the risk of injury from the broken sidewalk was not a "special hazard" but a risk shared with the general public, thus falling outside the compensable "gray area" of the going and coming rule.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic Parking LotOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardGray Area DoctrineSidewalk Fall
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06730
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Morocho v. Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety railings while renovating an apartment building owned by Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the absence of safety devices, and a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation because the movable scaffold lacked safety railings as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLabor LawAppellate ReviewPrima Facie BurdenSafety RailingsProximate CauseWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. ADJ6755214
Regular
Sep 04, 2012

IGNACIO LOZANO vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and disallowed both lien claims. The Board found that neither Scandoc Imaging nor Certified Interpreters met their burden of proof to establish the compensability of their respective liens. Specifically, Scandoc Imaging failed to provide evidence of the reasonableness of its charges, and Certified Interpreters lacked substantial evidence to support their claim. Consequently, both lien claimants were ordered to take nothing further.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimsScandoc ImagingCertified InterpretersBurden of ProofReasonableness of ChargesDiscoveryLabor Code Section 5703Findings and Award
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 143 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