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. ADJ7863229, ADJ7863244
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

ALICIA DE RAMOS vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, California Physician Network, LLC, whose successive petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely, unverified, and improper procedure. The Appeals Board is also initiating a sanctions hearing, pursuant to Labor Code § 5813, against the lien claimant and its representative for allegedly disrespectful and bad faith conduct. The claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, did not properly object to a dismissal notice, and filed procedurally defective petitions. The Board has removed the proceedings to consider imposing sanctions up to $2,500.

Reconsideration petitionSuccessive petitionUnverified petitionLabor Code section 5813SanctionsCommissioner's conferenceRemovalLien claimantDisrespectful remarksBad faith actions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Principe v. Assay Partners

Fourth-party defendant Meadow Mechanical Corporation moved for sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel, Lawrence Clarke, Esq., alleging abusive conduct during depositions and an improper suggestion regarding notarizations. The court, presided over by Diane A. Lebedeff, J., found Mr. Clarke’s remarks during depositions (e.g., "little lady," "little mouse," "young girl") to be frivolous, abusive, and discriminatory, meriting sanctions under 22 NYCRR part 130. However, the allegations regarding improper notarization were denied due to a factual dispute requiring a hearing, which the court deemed inappropriate given the limited financial deterrent of part 130; instead, this matter was referred to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. The court ordered Mr. Clarke to pay $500 to the Clients’ Security Fund and $500 to movant’s attorney as reasonable attorney's fees. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to civility and non-discriminatory conduct in the legal profession.

Attorney MisconductSanctionsGender BiasDiscovery AbuseProfessional ResponsibilityDepositionsNotarization AllegationDisciplinary ActionObjective StandardFrivolous Conduct
References
45
Case No. No. 07-16-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC

This case involves an appeal by attorney William A. Brewer III against a sanctions order issued by Judge Ruben G. Reyes of the 72nd District Court, Lubbock. The trial court imposed sanctions on Brewer for his role in conducting a pretrial telephone survey, deemed a 'push poll,' designed to improperly influence the jury pool in a products liability/wrongful death case where Brewer represented Titeflex Corporation. Brewer challenged the sanctions, arguing lack of bad faith and claiming the conduct did not significantly interfere with a core judicial function, and that the sanctions were excessive. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of Brewer's intentional bad faith conduct. The court concluded that the survey significantly interfered with the court's core function of empaneling an impartial jury and that the imposed monetary sanctions and ethics training were appropriate and not excessive.

SanctionsAttorney MisconductJury TamperingPush PollTrial ProcedureJudicial DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
39
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Camardo v. City of Auburn

The petitioner challenged the City of Auburn's negative declaration concerning the proposed CCC-Center for Performing Arts project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to conduct a thorough environmental review, improperly segmented the project, and did not adequately involve relevant agencies or the public. The court reviewed the administrative record and determined that the respondent had fulfilled its obligations under SEQRA by identifying environmental concerns, conducting a 'hard look' at them, and providing a reasoned basis for its determination. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner's verified petition.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCity PlanningPublic CommentProject SegmentationLead Agency
References
10
Case No. ADJ768780 (FRE 0249044)
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

ANDRE PARENTEAU vs. GRIEF BROTHERS, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and modified a prior order, affirming the award of $5,252.50 in attorney's fees and costs against lien claimant AMR Group. While acknowledging AMR Group's egregious and meritless conduct, including filing a faulty Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, the WCAB rescinded a separate notice of intent to sanction. This second sanction notice was deemed improper as a prior WCJ had already addressed and dismissed a similar sanction for the same conduct. The WCAB emphasized that reissuing a sanction notice for the same actions violated due process.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAttorney's FeesCostsNotice of Intent to SanctionEgregious ConductFrivolous ConductWCJAdjudicated
References
0
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00609
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Cottrell v. Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc.

Claimant Cornelius Cottrell filed for workers' compensation benefits following two work-related accidents in 2000 and 2003. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) made awards and transferred payments between the claims, which the employer and carrier opposed, citing improper judicial conduct and questioning the official record of the hearing. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the WCLJ's decision, relying on a corrected written transcript. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that written transcripts are a valid record and that the WCLJ's conduct, while potentially unprofessional, did not warrant rescission of the decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ConductHearing TranscriptsEvidentiary RecordClaim TransferLumbar Spine InjuryMajor Depressive DisorderWork-related AccidentAppellate ReviewBoard Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ2610987 (SBR 0304298)
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

ELSIE SMITH vs. LAIDLAW, BROADSPIRE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant failed to prove a disabling pre-existing condition before her 2001 injury or a combined permanent disability of at least 70%. The WCAB found the administrative law judge properly relied on the AME's orthopedic opinion and disregarded an older report, also noting the applicant's attorney improperly submitted deposition testimony not in evidence. The attorney was admonished for improper evidence submission and potentially sanctionable conduct.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPreexisting permanent disabilityLabor Code section 4751Agreed Medical EvaluatorAMEMedical reportsWCJPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Release
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,550 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