Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ9248422, ADJ9247183

Regular

Sep 12, 2019

VERONICA VASQUEZ vs. EAST COAST FOODS, dba ROSCOE'S HOUSE OF CHICKEN AND WAFFLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the validity of liens filed by medical providers and interpreters. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior order, finding that the declarations supporting the liens were invalid because the declarant, Ilona Kulikova, lacked personal knowledge. The Board dismissed one lien completely due to the lack of any other valid declaration. However, for two other liens, the Board remanded the case to allow the trial judge to reconsider additional declarations that were not initially evaluated.

Labor Code section 4903.8DeclarationPersonal knowledgeCompetent to testifyElectronic signatureLien claimantsAmended declarationsDue processJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration

References

Case No. ADJ10344350; ADJ10344309

Regular

Sep 29, 2025

JUAN SALAZAR vs. MAYWOOD PLAZA MARKET, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concerning lien claimants Industrial Healthcare PMG, Complete Interpreting, and Peralta Hills-Mission Valley Imaging. The WCJ had dismissed their liens, finding their declarations under Labor Code section 4903.8(d) invalid. The WCAB, however, found that the declarant, Ilona Kulikova, possessed sufficient personal knowledge and access to information to competently testify regarding the services provided and billing accuracy. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Orders and substituted new findings declaring the lien claimants' original section 4903.8(d) declarations valid, thus remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 4903.8(d)Lien claimantsDeclarationsCompetent to testifyPrima facie evidenceBurden of proofIndustrial Healthcare PMGComplete InterpretingPeralta Hills-Mission Valley ImagingIlona Kulikova

References

Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04658 [241 AD3d 701]

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 13, 2025

Niemotko v. Mount St. Mary Coll.

The plaintiffs, Tracey Niemotko, Moira Tolan, and Ilona McGuiness, commenced an action against Mount Saint Mary College, David Kennett, Jason Adsit, and Michael Olivette, alleging employment discrimination on the basis of gender, constructive discharge, and unlawful retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order. The court found that the defendants offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding pretext, hostile work environment, or constructive discharge.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationUnlawful RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York State Human Rights LawAppellate DecisionAdverse Employment ActionPretext

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Gartenbaum v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Plaintiff Ilona Gartenbaum, a white employee, filed a Title VII racial discrimination lawsuit against Beth Israel Medical Center and three supervisors, alleging she was denied promotions in favor of less qualified black employees. The court, sua sponte, questioned her counsel, Bart Nason's, pre-filing investigation under Rule 11, noting prior union grievance procedures and an arbitration, where race was not an issue, had not supported Gartenbaum's claims. While Mr. Nason's investigation was found to be inadequate, relying on the client's assertions and an unsupported affidavit from a union representative, the court acknowledged that Gartenbaum could make out a prima facie case for racial discrimination concerning at least two denied promotions. Consequently, the court denied Rule 11 sanctions at this juncture and allowed the Title VII claim to proceed to discovery. Additionally, the court ordered the consolidation of this action with a separate pro se retaliation lawsuit filed by Gartenbaum against the same defendants.

Title VIIRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRule 11 SanctionsPre-Filing InvestigationPrima Facie CaseGrievance ProcedureArbitrationEEOC InvestigationNLRB

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

VERONICA VASQUEZ vs. EAST COAST FOODS, dba ROSCOE'S HOUSE OF CHICKEN AND WAFFLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Labor Code section 4903.8DeclarationPersonal knowledgeCompetent to testifyElectronic signatureLien claimantsAmended declarationsDue processJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration

JUAN SALAZAR vs. MAYWOOD PLAZA MARKET, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Niemotko v. Mount St. Mary Coll.

Gartenbaum v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Title VIIRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRule 11 SanctionsPre-Filing InvestigationPrima Facie CaseGrievance ProcedureArbitrationEEOC InvestigationNLRB