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. 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. ADJ9919365, ADJ9919392, ADJ10564628
Regular
Aug 25, 2017

ALFREDO JORDAN RAMOS vs. BEN'S ROOFING, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision due to improperly identified exhibits and a lack of specific record citations in the opinion. The WCJ improperly admitted grouped medical reports and failed to cite which specific reports formed the basis of the Findings and Award. While the Appeals Board acknowledges the potential admissibility of the applicant's treating physician's later report, the WCJ retains discretion over its admission. The case is returned for further proceedings to allow for proper development of the record and a clearer articulation of the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating Physician ReportLabor Code Section 5703Develop the RecordAdmissibility of EvidencePermanent DisabilityPanel QME
References
5
Case No. ADJ10550101
Regular
Apr 08, 2019

MONALISA JIMENEZ vs. CCI TEHACHAPI, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found the petition for removal was improperly filed as reconsideration was an adequate remedy. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was "skeletal," failing to meet the specificity requirements of Labor Code § 5902 and Appeals Board Rules regarding citation to the record and detailed grounds.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalskeletal petitionAOE/COEfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board Rule 10842
References
10
Case No. ADJ7069357
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

CHERYL MCMILLIN vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision and imposed $300 in sanctions against defendant's attorney and law firm. The sanctions were for failing to comply with procedural rules, including improper citation practices and impugning the applicant's attorney. The attorney apologized but did not fully address all procedural violations. The Board adopted the judge's report and recommendation in its decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJPetitionObjection to Sanctionszealous representationunpublished case
References
0
Case No. ADJ8403797
Regular
Dec 20, 2013

KEVIN WISE vs. CITY OF OAKDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding that applicant sustained a compensable industrial injury. Defendant's petition for reconsideration is being reviewed due to the improper citation of an unpublished case, *Robinson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board*, as binding authority. The Board intends to sanction defendant's attorneys $500 for this misrepresentation, which appears to be a frivolous tactic intended to cause delay.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMultiple MyelomaPlasmacytomaLabor Code Section 3212.1ReconsiderationSanctionBad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary DelayUnpublished Opinion
References
4
Case No. ADJ2876358
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

LORI WILLIAMS vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Lori Williams' petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely, more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision. Additionally, the petition failed to provide specific record citations as required by Board Rule 10945(b), placing an improper burden on the Board. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report. Therefore, the petition is dismissed for both procedural deficiencies.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB Rule 10945(b)Specific Record ReferencesEvidentiary StatementsAppellate ProceedingsWaiver of ArgumentDiscovery BurdenDenied on Merits
References
9
Case No. ADJ4430362
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

JOSE GOMEZ vs. ST APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC.

This case involves Jose Gomez's workers' compensation claim for spinal and psychological injuries sustained on April 12, 2006. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. The denial was based on the WCJ's finding that the applicant's testimony was not credible, as the described events were factually impossible. Furthermore, the petition for reconsideration was procedurally deficient due to improper verification and lack of record citations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingVerificationCalifornia Code of RegulationsInjury AOE/COEWillfully UninsuredSpine InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ620397 (RIV 0056438)
Regular
Jan 24, 2012

IGNACIO FLORES vs. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) imposed a $\$500$ sanction against Andrew Flores and Tustin Hospital and Medical Center, jointly and severally. This sanction was due to their filing of a frivolous petition with improper legal citations. Furthermore, they repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings for the case. Neither party responded to the WCAB's notice of intention to issue sanctions. Consequently, the sanctions are ordered for their bad faith actions and tactics.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLab. Code § 5813Frivolous PetitionImproper CitationsFailure to AppearBad Faith ActionsLien ClaimantTustin Hospital and Medical Center
References
0
Case No. ADJ7293277
Regular
Oct 22, 2014

ELNA VISTA vs. LAB CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE GLOBAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a previous award. The prior award found the applicant sustained industrial injury to her spine and shoulder, resulting in 27% permanent disability and awarding temporary disability benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial, highlighting the defendant's misrepresentations of the record and improper citation of legal precedent in their petition. This misconduct also led to an admonishment of the defendant's attorney.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsideration DeniedIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaPhlebotomistCervical SpineLumbar SpineRight ShoulderPermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability Indemnity
References
1
Case No. ADJ4565216 (MON 0357743)
Regular
Jun 25, 2012

JENNIFER GONZALEZ vs. YUM YUM DONUT SHOPS, INC., STATE FARM CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

This case involves a Petition for Removal and Reconsideration filed by a lien claimant and deponents. They sought sanctions against the defendant for alleged misrepresentations and improper legal citations in discovery requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both petitions. This was because the petitions were filed 85 days after the administrative law judge's decision, significantly exceeding the 20-day deadline plus 5 days for mail service. The Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely filings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimantSanctionsCostsDiscoveryMotion to CompelFindings of FactProof of Service
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,024 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