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. ADJ4087697 [SDO 0359290] ADJ3019069 [SDO 0361778]
Regular
Dec 04, 2008

NORMA MENDEZ vs. DIRECTED ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings to clarify whether modified work was indefinitely available for the applicant after her termination for cause on October 18, 2006. The employer suggested modified work was available during their busy season, but the WCAB found the record inconclusive regarding indefinite availability. The WCAB upheld the finding that the employer did not violate Labor Code section 132a.

Odd Lot DoctrineTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 132aModified WorkIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryLeft Cheek ContusionReconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wisneski v. Nassau Health Care Corp.

A registered nurse, suffering from a knee condition, sued her employers for alleged failure to accommodate her disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York state law. The plaintiff requested a position requiring less standing and an indefinite leave of absence as accommodations. The Court found no evidence of a suitable vacant position and determined that an indefinite leave of absence did not constitute a reasonable accommodation. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the ADA claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtMedical LeaveIndefinite LeaveEEOC ExhaustionContinuing Violation
References
22
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07587 [176 AD3d 1069]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2019

Matter of Rosenberg v. Schwartz

The case involves Eric Rosenberg and Allan Schwartz, who were 50% owners of Blind Builders USA, Inc. They agreed to arbitrate their claims to the company's assets before a rabbinical arbitration tribunal, which issued an award including the distribution of accounts receivable. Rosenberg sought to confirm the award, while Schwartz moved to vacate it, arguing it was indefinite regarding the accounts receivable distribution. The Supreme Court confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed appeals from prior orders and an earlier judgment. It modified the December 23, 2016, judgment, finding the arbitration award indefinite as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable incurred prior to the award date were to be distributed. Consequently, that portion of the award was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the rabbinical arbitration tribunal for further proceedings on that specific issue.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardAccounts ReceivableBusiness DisputePartnership DisputeRabbinical Arbitration TribunalIndefinite AwardNonfinal Award
References
10
Case No. 19094/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2012

5 Brothers, Inc. v. D.C.M. of New York, LLC

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor, D.C.M. of New York, LLC (DCM), and a subcontractor, Vintage Flooring & Tile Inc. (Vintage), stemming from a construction project for a Best Buy store. The parties had an arbitration agreement, and an arbitrator awarded Vintage $76,539.13. DCM moved to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was irrational, against public policy, and indefinite, partly due to an alleged willfully exaggerated mechanic's lien by Vintage. Separately, Vintage moved to confirm the award. The court denied DCM's motion to vacate the award, finding that DCM failed to demonstrate the award was irrational or indefinite, and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Vintage. The court also denied DCM's motion for summary judgment on its lien exaggeration claim, stating that the arbitration implicitly rejected the exaggeration claim by finding Vintage's claim meritorious.

Arbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorMechanic's LienLien ExaggerationPublic PolicyIrrational AwardIndefinite Award
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory B. v. Gregory F.

This consolidated appeal addresses whether incarcerated parents "permanently neglected" their children under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a), thus justifying the termination of parental rights. In Matter of Gregory B., the father, incarcerated since 1980, proposed long-term foster care for his children until his release, which was rejected. Similarly, in Matter of Willie John B. and Matter of Delores B., the father, incarcerated since 1979, also offered indefinite foster care after relatives were found unwilling or unable to provide care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights in all cases, holding that while 1983 statutory reforms acknowledged special circumstances for incarcerated parents, they did not excuse them from planning for their child's future. The Court concluded that indefinite foster care is not a "viable plan" as it is inconsistent with the purpose of foster care and deprives children of the essential permanency required for proper growth and development.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationIncarcerated ParentSocial Services LawFoster CareAdoptionChild WelfareFamily LawCourt of AppealsJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ6803131
Regular
May 17, 2010

RANDY TEMPLE vs. RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN AND NUFICO OF PITTSBURGH, PA., CHARTIS SAN RAMON

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was permanent and stationary on June 1, 2009. The Board found the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion more persuasive, concluding the applicant was not yet permanent and stationary due to ongoing recovery from knee surgery. Consequently, temporary disability benefits are awarded through October 26, 2009, with further proceedings to determine benefits thereafter.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and StationaryTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryLeft KneeMedical OpinionReconsiderationFindings of FactOrthopaedic Surgeon
References
1
Case No. ADJ2145098 (SAL 0113144)
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

JOSE R. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ vs. TANIMURA & ANTLE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the duration of temporary disability benefits awarded to the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. However, the Board granted the defendant's petition, amending the award to end temporary disability benefits on March 26, 2008, when the Agreed Medical Evaluator declared the applicant permanent and stationary, finding insufficient evidence of continued disability thereafter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and StationaryUntimely PetitionLabor Code § 5903Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8
References
2
Case No. ADJ10329602
Regular
May 15, 2018

LAUREN JONES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by the defendant, the County of Los Angeles Superior Court, concerning a workers' compensation award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, but affirmed the original award with an amendment. Specifically, Finding of Fact No. 3 was amended to establish temporary total disability from April 20, 2016, through August 3, 2017. The issue of temporary disability thereafter was deferred for further determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityDeferred IssueFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCounty of Los Angeles Superior CourtTristar Risk ManagementVan Nuys District OfficeDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ11094232
Regular
May 21, 2019

HERIBERTO FUERTE ALVAREZ vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original decision. The amended decision affirmed the prior ruling but modified the temporary disability indemnity award. Specifically, it now includes an award for temporary disability indemnity beginning October 3, 2017, continuing thereafter, with a 15% reduction for retroactive temporary disability payable to the applicant's attorneys. This amendment is subject to Labor Code Section 4656.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportDecision After ReconsiderationTemporary disability indemnitystatutory rateOctober 32017Law Offices of Torkan and FarzanpourLabor Code Section 4656
References
0
Case No. ADJ2191262
Regular
Nov 03, 2008

JOY ANN HIGHFILL vs. CLUB DISNEY, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case affirms a prior decision regarding attorney's fees. The Board clarified that attorney fees on temporary disability indemnity are awarded only on indemnity obtained or awarded as a result of the attorney's services. Because the record was insufficient to determine if temporary disability indemnity was voluntarily paid prior to the initial award, the attorney's fee was properly limited to any unpaid temporary disability indemnity thereafter awarded.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionAttorney's FeePermanent Disability IndemnityTemporary Disability IndemnityUnpaid IndemnityPolicy and Procedural ManualPretrial Conference StatementMinutes of Hearing
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 89 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