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. ADJ106846 (VNO 0536976)
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

SARKIS INDOIAN (Dec'd), BETTY INDOIAN (Widow) vs. ON THE WHEELS, SUCCESS DELIVERY, NOUNE SOMOKRANIAN, VIGEN GABOUCHIAN, ROUZZANA ARCHAKOUNI, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the decedent sustained a fatal cumulative trauma injury due to his employment with Success Delivery. The Board found the medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, lacked sufficient factual basis and an accurate employment history to establish a causal link. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record to determine if the employment with Success Delivery contributed to the injury.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryDeath benefitsEmployment relationshipSubstantial shareholderPartnershipUninsured employerMedical evidenceCausationApportionment
References
4
Case No. ADJ6633632
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DESHAY FORD vs. TRI-COUNTIES REGIONAL CENTERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Deshay Ford's successive petition for reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board order denying his petition for removal. The Board dismissed Ford's petition because successive petitions challenging a prior order are impermissible under established precedent. The applicant's sole recourse for reviewing an Appeals Board decision is to petition for a writ of review to the Court of Appeals.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDismissedSuccessive petitionsWrit of reviewAppeals BoardCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A FarmingIn pro perTri-Counties Regional Centers
References
2
Case No. ADJ11997989, ADJ2534190, ADJ3372314, ADJ470082, ADJ6672465
Regular
Mar 13, 2023

JAMES VESSELS vs. CRUZ MODULAR, INC., LABOR READY, ENSTAR US, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely, having been filed significantly past the jurisdictional deadline. The Board also noted this was a successive petition, which is impermissible when the prior petition was not successful and no new grievances have arisen. The Applicant's repeated, untimely filings have led the Board to consider declaring him a vexatious litigant under Rule 10430. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed in its entirety.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelysuccessive petitionjurisdictionalMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com.Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
14
Case No. ADJ8766821
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

PARAMJIT KAINTH vs. KEVIN'S PAINTING AND CONSTRUCTION, a partnership, KEVIN SINGH aka KULDIP SINGH, SEE SINGH, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves defendants Kevin's Painting and Construction and Kevin Singh seeking reconsideration of a prior dismissal of their petition. The Board dismissed the current petition as an impermissible successive filing. Previously, their initial petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 13 days late, and they failed to diligently order transcripts needed for their appeal. Even if not successive, the current petition would be denied on its merits for the same reasons of untimeliness and lack of diligence.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTranscript request delayDiligenceLabor Code § 5903California Code of Regulations § 10859Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2004

Smith v. Bowers

Plaintiffs, members of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), moved for a preliminary injunction against the ILA and United States Maritime Alliance, Ltd. (USMX). They sought to prohibit the implementation of a Master Contract, enjoin disciplinary actions against them, and direct a re-run of the contract ratification vote. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Section 101(a)(1) of the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA) due to disenfranchisement of members in three locals, inadequate notice and secrecy in others, and coerced votes. They also asserted claims of impermissible retaliation and breach of the Union's duty of fair representation. The Court, applying a heightened "clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits" standard, denied the motion. It found that while Plaintiffs met the jurisdictional bar, they failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on their LMRDA claims regarding vote disqualification and alleged improprieties, or on their retaliation and duty of fair representation claims. The Court also concluded that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of hardships tipped in their favor, noting the potential destabilization of the East Coast shipping industry and economic benefits of the new contract for other union members.

Labor lawUnion electionsLMRDANorris-LaGuardia ActPreliminary injunctionVoting rightsDuty of fair representationContract ratificationUnion governanceLabor dispute
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mihelis v. i.park Lake Success

This case concerns an appeal from an order denying summary judgment in a construction accident lawsuit. The plaintiff and a coworker were severely injured, and the coworker killed, when a roof panel collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim asserted a lack of safety devices. The appellate court modified the original order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing defendants' failure to provide proper protection despite knowing the defective condition of the roof. It also affirmed the denial of dismissal for the plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and affirmed the denial of defendants' premature contractual indemnification claims against Professional Waterproofing & Restoration.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentRoof CollapseNegligenceContractual IndemnificationWorksite SafetyUnsafe ConditionsThird-Party Claim
References
3
Case No. GOL 0087934, GOL 0087935, GOL 0087936
Significant
Mar 28, 2002

Alonso Navarro vs. A&A Farming, Western Growers Insurance Co.

The Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration concerning a Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim. The decision was based on the grounds that it was an impermissible successive petition and that the underlying claim was preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Labor Code section 132aERISA preemptionsuccessive petitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boarden banc decisiongroup health benefitsdiscriminationindustrial injuriestemporarily disabledfederal law
References
29
Case No. GOL 0087934, GOL 0087935, GOL 0087936
En Banc
Mar 28, 2002

Alonso Navarro vs. A&A Farming, Western Growers Insurance Co.

The Board dismisses the applicant's petition for reconsideration as an impermissible successive petition, affirming its previous en banc decision that the applicant's Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim was preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

ERISA preemptionLabor Code Section 132adiscriminationgroup health benefitssuccessive petitionreconsiderationworkers' compensationen bancliberal construction29 U.S.C. §1144(a)
References
29
Case No. PAS 0016590, PAS 0016591
Regular
Jan 25, 2008

ROBERT HARLOW vs. STEINY & COMPANY, CNA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant filing a second petition for reconsideration after his initial petition was denied. The Appeals Board dismissed the second petition because successive petitions are impermissibly allowed. The applicant's proper recourse for challenging the Board's decision is a writ of review to the Court of Appeal.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationOrder denying reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and RecommendationWithdrawal of counselImpermissibly successiveCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A FarmingWrit of review
References
2
Case No. ADJ118647 (SDO 0300814)
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

Anja Freeman vs. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration as untimely. The board noted that the petitions were filed after the jurisdictional deadline for seeking reconsideration of their August 8, 2016 decision. Furthermore, the applicant had already unsuccessfully petitioned for reconsideration, and successive petitions are generally impermissible unless based on new evidence. Therefore, all subsequent petitions were dismissed for being untimely and improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalSuccessive PetitionsNewly AggrievedWrit of ReviewFindings and AwardWCJWCABPermissibly Self-Insured
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 797 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