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. ADJ10607792
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

DANAE MARTINEZ vs. TRUE LEAF FARMS/PACIFIC RISK MANAGEMENT, PSI, administered by PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. While the WCJ's initial order addressed a threshold issue (injury AOE/COE), the applicant's petition only challenged interlocutory issues regarding QME panels. The WCAB treated this as a request for removal, which is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. Because the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy for future interlocutory issues, the petition was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReport of Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgethreshold issuefinal decisioninjury arising out of and in the course of employmentAOE/COEinterlocutory issuesremoval standardqualified medical evaluator
References
4
Case No. ADJ10296202, ADJ10296203
Regular
Jan 29, 2020

ANDRIA STREETER vs. GOODWILL SERVING THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration or removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied the petition, finding the decision contained both a threshold issue (injury AOE/COE) making it final for reconsideration, and an interlocutory issue (treatment outside the medical provider network). Because the petition primarily challenged the interlocutory issue, it was evaluated under the more stringent removal standard. The Board found no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalJoint Findings of FactInjury AOE/COEThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueMedical Provider NetworkSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kappel v. Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of Akron Wrecking Corp., sustained personal injuries during the demolition of the Zeigfeld Theatre when he fell after being struck by an object. He initiated a negligence action against the owner, Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp., and its subsidiary, Fibro Construction Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law § 241. Following a jury verdict against the defendants on the issue of liability, an interlocutory judgment was entered. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and dismissed both the main complaint and the third-party complaint. The appellate court concluded that an owner or general contractor is not liable under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 without control over the work, placing the responsibility for safety devices specific to a subcontractor's work on the subcontractor.

NegligencePersonal InjuryDemolition AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soddano v. Anchorage Woods of New Jersey, Inc.

The court granted a motion to dismiss the appeal without costs. The decision sought to be appealed was deemed interlocutory, meaning it did not resolve all issues in the case. Furthermore, the decision did not decide any threshold legal issues. Consequently, the court ruled that such an interlocutory decision is not appealable. This aligns with precedent established in *Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear*.

Appeal dismissalInterlocutory decisionNon-appealable decisionThreshold legal issuesAppellate procedureMotion practice
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szarewicz v. Alboro Crane Rental Corp.

The interlocutory judgment from Supreme Court, Kings County, favoring the plaintiff against Alboro Crane Rental Corp. on liability, was unanimously reversed and vacated on appeal. The plaintiff, a structural steel worker employed by Harrod Steel Erectors, was injured when knocked off a steel beam, allegedly due to a negligent crane operator. A key issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the operator and Alboro, which owned and leased the crane to Harrod. The court found insufficient evidence to establish this relationship, noting the operator was not on Alboro's payroll and Alboro lacked control over his work. Consequently, the complaint against Alboro was dismissed, as liability could not be based on the rental agreement or control theory.

Crane accidentliabilityemployer-employee relationshipvicarious liabilitynegligenceleased equipmentappellate reviewjudgment reversalstructural steel workercrane operator control
References
2
Case No. ADJ12788878
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

MARIO LUPERCIO PEREZ vs. ARMANDO CHAN dba CHAN DRAINAGE, MARKEL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed as a removal petition challenging interlocutory issues. Although the WCJ's decision contained a final threshold finding of injury AOE/COE, the defendant only disputed the specialty of a QME and the timeliness of an objection, which are interlocutory. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy later if a final adverse decision issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueInjury AOE/COEQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Treating Physician ReportRemoval StandardSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. ADJ7469597
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

ANA AVALOS vs. STAFFCHEX, INCORPORATED, LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's second petition for reconsideration, deeming it successive and without merit as it challenged interlocutory discovery orders, not a final decision. The Board, on its own motion, also issued a notice of intention to impose $1,000 in sanctions against applicant's counsel, Carl A. Feldman. This action was taken for filing a frivolous and bad-faith petition, disregarding prior explanations of final orders. Counsel has 15 days plus mailing time to show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DismissingDenial of RemovalInterlocutory Discovery OrdersPQME AppointmentFinal OrderPre-trial OrdersWCJ's Report and RecommendationSuccessive Petition
References
2
Case No. 02 MDL 1499, 02 Civ. 4712, 02 Civ. 6218, 03 Civ. 1024, 03 Civ. 4524
Regular Panel Decision

Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG

This Opinion & Order addresses the defendants' motion to certify for interlocutory appeal three key issues arising from a lawsuit filed by South Africans against multinational corporations for allegedly aiding and abetting torts during the apartheid era. The defendants sought certification on the application of case-specific deference, the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting under international law, and the vicarious liability standard for foreign subsidiaries. The court denied certification for case-specific deference, concluding it did not involve a controlling question of law, lacked substantial grounds for disagreement, and an appeal would not materially advance the litigation. While acknowledging substantial ground for disagreement on the mens rea issue, the court still denied certification, asserting an immediate appeal would not expedite the litigation's termination. Finally, certification for the vicarious liability standard was denied, as the court found no substantial ground for difference of opinion. Consequently, the defendants' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal and a request for a stay of proceedings were entirely denied.

Interlocutory AppealAlien Tort Claims ActAiding and AbettingCustomary International LawSouth African ApartheidMultinational CorporationsCase-Specific DeferencePolitical Question DoctrineInternational ComityMens Rea
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ766393 (FRE 0240375) ADJ6645814
Regular
May 11, 2015

MARGARITA MACIAS vs. SAN JOAQUIN FIGS, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an order that declared no triable issue of fact and took a case off calendar. This order was improperly issued at a mandatory settlement conference, as disputed issues cannot be decided at such conferences without consent. The Board found the prior order was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and therefore returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision allows the defendant to properly pursue their petition for contribution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMinute OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceOff CalendarJoinderContributionPetition for ContributionArbitrationDue Process
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,256 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