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. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. ADJ1679104 (LBO 0387820)
Regular
Aug 26, 2010

GUADALUPE FREGOSO vs. INTEGRAL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a permanent disability rating for an applicant injured on August 1, 2006. The defendant argued the rating was erroneous because the administrative law judge (WCJ) instructed the disability evaluator to rate the treating physician's report without referencing the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the WCJ's instructions were based on the physician's opinion, which complied with the AMA Guides, and the evaluator's rating followed those instructions. The Board also corrected a clerical error regarding the attorney fee calculation.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationFindings and Awardtemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentnon-industrial causesindustrial injurynecklow back
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Wallace

This Memorandum and Order addresses two jury charging issues in a criminal case where an unnamed corrections officer is accused of making false statements to the Internal Revenue Service regarding tax refund applications. The defendant, influenced by literature from a coworker, claimed his wages were not taxable income. Senior District Judge Weinstein ruled that the defense is entitled to an instruction incorporating the Cheek v. United States standard, requiring the government to prove the defendant knew his view of tax law was wrong. Conversely, the court granted the government's request for a deliberate ignorance instruction, allowing the jury to consider if the defendant consciously avoided learning the truth about his tax obligations. The order provides detailed jury instructions on 'knowingly' submitting a 'false or fictitious claim' and the burden of proof regarding the defendant's good-faith belief.

Criminal LawTax FraudFalse StatementsJury InstructionsKnowledge of LawDeliberate IgnoranceWillfulnessTax EvasionInternal Revenue ServiceFederal Taxation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) was indicted on a single count of enterprise corruption under Penal Law § 460.20, based on 81 pattern acts committed by individual union officers, members, or agents. The NMDU moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence and incorrect Grand Jury instructions regarding the union's liability. The court found that while a labor union, as an unincorporated association, can be criminally liable under New York law, and enterprise corruption is an appropriate charge, the Grand Jury instructions were critically flawed. Specifically, the instructions failed to adequately define terms like 'actual participation,' 'actual authorization,' and 'ratification after actual knowledge.' Furthermore, the court determined that New York's common-law no-agency rule for unincorporated associations, as established in Martin v Curran, requires proof that every union member individually authorized or ratified the criminal acts, a more stringent standard than what was presented. The court also rejected the applicability of Labor Law § 807 (6) as a general standard for union criminal liability, as it is limited to injunctions during labor disputes, which was not the context for most of the alleged acts. Consequently, the indictment against the NMDU was dismissed, with leave for the prosecution to re-present the case to another Grand Jury.

Enterprise CorruptionLabor Union LiabilityGrand Jury InstructionsCriminal LawUnincorporated AssociationsPenal Law InterpretationVicarious LiabilityRacketeeringOrganized CrimeLabor Racketeering
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1985

Claim of the Estate of Gaetano Mesi v. Ro-Siu Constr., Inc.

A laborer drowned while swimming at a construction site near the waterfront, an activity he had been instructed not to do and which the Workers' Compensation Board found was not part of his employment. The Board's decision, which was based on substantial evidence, was affirmed on appeal. The court upheld that the decedent was engaged in an activity he was instructed against, and it was not incidental to his employment.

Workers' CompensationDrowningCourse of EmploymentEmployer InstructionsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLaborer InjuryConstruction Accident
References
1
Case No. ADJ9757215
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

CHRISTOPHER COLLINS vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Christopher Collins, challenging Formal Rating Instructions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Removal, clarifying that it is not the proper procedural vehicle for objecting to rating instructions. The WCAB noted that pursuant to Rule 10602, a timely objection must be made directly to the Workers' Compensation Judge. Therefore, the WCAB is remanding the matter to the trial level to have the Petition for Removal treated as a timely objection.

Petition for RemovalFormal Rating InstructionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJObjectionTrial LevelDismissedTimelyRule 10602
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1998

Lozada v. State

Klever Lozada sustained personal injuries after falling from an elevated platform on a truck. He was not wearing a safety belt despite being repeatedly instructed to do so and having safety equipment available. The Court of Claims initially found for the claimant, rejecting the defendant's recalcitrant worker defense. On appeal, the interlocutory judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the defendant successfully established the recalcitrant worker defense, as adequate safety devices were available, the claimant was instructed to use them, and he declined to do so, thus dismissing the claim.

personal injuryfall from heightsafety beltrecalcitrant worker defenseLabor Lawemployer liabilityappellate reversalnon-jury trialworkplace safetynegligence
References
6
Case No. ADJ3673382 (AHM 0084473) ADJ1727200 (AHM 0085831) ADJ4050086 (AHM 0085856) ADJ2402991 (AHM 0085857) ADJ1361609 (AHM 0085858) ADJ700319 (AHM 0085827) ADJ1199908 (AHM 0085828) ADJ2455910 (AHM 0085829) ADJ1533147 (AHM 0085855)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

DOUGLAS BOULWARE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGLES FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision due to acknowledged errors by the WCJ, including a miscalculation of the applicant's life pension, and procedural issues raised by the defendant regarding service of rating instructions. The case involves multiple injury claims to various body parts over a long period, with complex apportionment issues. The matter is returned to the trial level for new formal rating instructions, proper service, opportunity for cross-examination, and a new decision addressing all contentions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDouglas BoulwareCounty of Los Angeles Fire DepartmentIntercare Insurance Servicesfirefighterindustrial injuryskinhearingshoulderselbows
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Tompkins County Courthouse

A claimant, a deputy sheriff, injured his back in an automobile accident. His physician requested authorization for swimming lessons as a rehabilitative measure. The Workers' Compensation Board authorized the swimming and instruction. The carrier appealed this decision, arguing that section 13 of the Workers' Compensation Law does not authorize such treatment. The court, applying principles of statutory construction like ejusdem generis, concluded that swimming facilities and instruction are not explicitly or implicitly authorized by the relevant sections of the Workers' Compensation Law. Therefore, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationRehabilitationMedical TreatmentScope of AuthorizationEjusdem GenerisAppellate ReviewTompkins County
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 442 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