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. ADJ3742469
Regular
Aug 14, 2015

DEAL RAYMOND vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal of an Order Taking Case Off Calendar. The defendant argued the order would cause prejudice and delay, but failed to demonstrate substantial harm or irreparable injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, except for the recommendation of sanctions for attaching extraneous documents. The Board clarified that while some attachments may be permissible in removal petitions, improperly attaching existing record documents is inappropriate.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Case Off CalendarPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and RecommendationSanctionsCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10845(a)Evidentiary RecordSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hare v. Champion International

The claimant, a former laborer and millwright, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision ruling he failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market, despite sustaining multiple work-related injuries, including head, neck, and back trauma. His employment ended in 1999 due to a mill sale, with prior findings attributing his unemployment to economic conditions. Following further hearings and medical examinations, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined he had a moderate, permanent partial disability not prohibiting employment, and lacked labor market attachment. The Board affirmed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments for total disability and upholding the finding that he had not sought work since December 2000, thus failing to demonstrate the requisite attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEconomic ConditionsUnemploymentDisability BenefitsJudicial AffirmationConflicting Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ1773429 (MON 0282203) ADJ855226 (MON 0077581) ADJ2715287 (MON 0077582)
Regular
Nov 19, 2013

CURTIS WARD vs. TECHNICOLOR, INC.

This case involves a sanction imposed against applicant's attorney, Leatrice L. Cohen, for violating Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Rules. The Board found Ms. Cohen's attachment of over 300 pages of documents to a petition for removal to be improper, as Board Rule 10842(c) prohibits attaching exhibits. Her defense that some documents were not scanned into EAMS was rejected, as the rule prohibits attaching documents already present in the record. Consequently, the Board ordered Ms. Cohen to pay a $900 sanction to the General Fund.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRemovalSanctionLabor Code section 5813Rules of Practice and ProcedurePetition for removalAppeals Board Rule 10842(c)ExhibitsEAMSFrivolous tactics
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cole v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Claimant, suffering from a permanent partial disability due to occupational disease from asbestos exposure, chronic bronchitis, and COPD, voluntarily retired at age 69. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially denied benefits, concluding his retirement was unrelated to his disability. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant had demonstrated an attachment to the labor market by actively seeking employment within his medical restrictions. This Appellate Division appeal by the self-insured employer and its third-party administrator resulted in the affirmation of the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the claimant's demonstrated attachment to the labor market despite limiting his job search to his prior field.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureChronic BronchitisCOPDLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary RetirementEmployment SearchMedical Restrictions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. ADJ9844730, ADJ9844731
Regular
Jun 20, 2015

TEODORA OLAIS vs. ELASCO URETHANE INC., ICW GROUP / EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of an Order Denying a Petition for Change of Venue. The Board found the petition improper because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is only subject to removal. Even if construed as a removal petition, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the defendant's counsel committed multiple procedural errors, including failing to sign the petition and improperly attaching previously filed documents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.6Administrative Law JudgeRemovalNon-final OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCAB Rule 10843
References
8
Case No. ADJ1884241
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

ANTONIA CERVANTES vs. PRIDE INDUSTRIES, LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order imposing sanctions on lien claimant, Word of Mouth Interpreters, and its attorneys, Gonzales Law Firm. The board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the lien claimant improperly filed a petition for reconsideration without statutory grounds and attached unnecessary exhibits. The WCJ noted the lien claimant's pattern of conduct, including failure to appear at hearings and improper attempts to withdraw filings, which led to unnecessary litigation expenses. Sanctions were deemed appropriate due to the lien claimant's lack of due care and respect for the venue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportEAMSAmended Notice of IntentionRules of Practice and ProcedureDeficient PetitionStatutory GroundsLien ClaimantDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grove v. Cornell University

This dissenting opinion addresses a case where a plaintiff fell from a boom lift basket at a height exceeding 30 feet. The basket's gate was defective and did not close properly. The plaintiff also had a harness and lanyard that was either not attached or improperly attached. The dissent argues that the record contains factual issues regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. It posits that a jury could find the defective gate was a contributing cause to the fall and that the defendants failed to conclusively prove the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the dissent contends that the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action should not have been granted. Despite the dissent, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawDefective Safety DeviceBoom Lift AccidentFall From HeightProximate CauseFactual DisputeAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionWorker Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consub Delaware LLC v. Schahin Engenharia Limitada

Consub Delaware LLC sued Schahin Engenharia Limitada for breach of contract, seeking over $5.9 million and obtained an ex parte maritime attachment order, leading to the seizure of an electronic fund transfer (EFT) from Schahin. Schahin moved to vacate the attachment, arguing that EFTs are not attachable property and that forum selection clauses precluded the Rule B attachment. The court denied Schahin's motion to vacate, affirming that EFTs are attachable under existing Second Circuit law. The court also ruled that the forum selection clauses did not prevent prejudgment attachment in the U.S. District Court. However, the court granted Schahin's request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, recognizing a substantial ground for a difference of opinion on the attachability of EFTs, an issue that, if reversed on appeal, would terminate the litigation.

Admiralty lawMaritime attachmentBreach of contractElectronic fund transferRule BForum selection clauseInterlocutory appealJurisdictionSecond CircuitWinter Storm Shipping
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prather v. Amerada Hess Corp.

Claimant, a convenience store manager, sustained a work-related back and knee injury in July 2005 and received workers’ compensation benefits. After returning to work, he was terminated in February 2009, leading to hearings on his attachment to the labor market. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded additional benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. However, the employer appealed, asserting a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 20 (1) because a different WCLJ issued the decision than the one who presided over the hearing. The appellate court found this a violation of the statute's intent for continuity and, therefore, reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentJudicial ContinuityDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppealRemittalHearing OfficerReferee Change
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,224 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