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. ADJ7661375
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

JOSE CERVANTES vs. TOTAL RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant PTS after their lien was dismissed for failure to prove timely payment of the activation fee. The Board dismissed TCMG's petition for reconsideration because they did not file a lien and their petition contained numerous misrepresentations and procedural violations. The Board also issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $2,000 against Innovative Medical Management, the representative for both lien claimants, due to their bad faith actions and misrepresentations.

Lien activation feeProof of prior paymentSanctionsLabor Code Section 4903.06Labor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Due processMisrepresentation of factsStanding to appealEAMS
References
1
Case No. ADJ7536985
Regular
May 13, 2013

WALTER BARNETT vs. LOS ANGELES TIMES, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien. The lien claimant argued it never received the notice of intention to dismiss, but the Board found this contradictory as they had filed an objection. The Board also noted the lien claimant miscited and misrepresented relevant rules, and presented arguments previously rejected by the Board. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimant and its representatives for frivolous conduct and misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienFailure to AppearLien ConferenceAppeals Board Rule 10562SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
2
Case No. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Case No. CV-24-0676
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Christopher A. Augone

Claimant Christopher A. Augone had an established claim for work-related neck injuries sustained in 2021. Questions arose regarding prior injuries after a physician referenced a pre-2021 MRI. Despite claimant's denials, records showed a 2017 emergency room visit for neck pain. The employer and carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation for intentional misrepresentation. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that the carrier failed to prove intent, accepting claimant's explanation that he didn't consider the 2017 incident significant and forgot about it. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence regarding the lack of intentional misrepresentation.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationMaterial MisrepresentationIntent to DeceiveSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility FindingNeck Injury ClaimPrior Medical HistoryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim Jarvis

The claimant, a social worker, resigned from her temporary employment before its scheduled termination, having accepted another job offer. She later attempted to withdraw her resignation and decided not to take the new employment, subsequently applying for unemployment benefits. The Administrative Law Judge disqualified her for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause and found willful misrepresentation. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially reversed the disqualification, stating her intent regarding the new job was immaterial, but affirmed a modified penalty for misrepresentation. Upon appeal by the Commissioner of Labor, the court ruled that the claimant's intent to accept the new job was a critical factor in determining whether she left her previous employment for good cause. The Board's failure to consider this intent made its decision irrational, leading to a reversal and remittal for further proceedings.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsVoluntary LeavingGood CauseWillful MisrepresentationIntent to Accept New EmploymentResignation WithdrawalUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewLabor LawClaimant Disqualification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC.

Plaintiff, Bob Meadows, a 64-year-old African-American and Native-American former trucker, sued his ex-employer Planet Aid, Inc., and supervisors Rodney Carter and Jostein Pedersen, alleging age and race discrimination, FLSA and NYSHRL violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, retaliation, whistleblower violations, hostile work environment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal for NYSHRL, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, Title VII retaliation, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 whistleblower, and emotional distress claims. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for age and race discrimination, FLSA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation claims, allowing them to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPleading Standards
References
32
Case No. ADJ4440540 (LAO 0862447)
Regular
May 13, 2013

MODESTO VARGAS vs. SPEARS MANUFACTURING CO., ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of orders dismissing lien claimants' liens. Lien claimants argued they never received notices of intention to dismiss, but the Board found their petition miscited rules and contained arguments previously rejected. The Board intends to impose sanctions up to $2,500 against the lien claimants and their representatives for frivolous actions and misrepresentation of the law.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrders Dismissing LiensLien ClaimantsNotice of Intention to DismissAppeals Board Rule 10562Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsBad Faith ActionsQualified Billing and Collections
References
4
Case No. ADJ7448960
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

Marco Altamirano vs. Yafa, A Pen Company, Inc., Employers Compensation Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the dismissal of lien claimants' claims for failure to pay lien activation fees. The Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimants' representatives, Qualified Billing and Collections, LLC and Diego S. Plasencia. This action is due to alleged misrepresentations in the Petition for Reconsideration regarding proof of payment of the required fees. The Board found that the petition contained false or misleading statements and lacked specific record references, constituting sanctionable conduct.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Petition for ReconsiderationWCJSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Bad Faith ActionsFrivolous Tactics
References
2
Case No. ADJ9664689
Regular
Apr 02, 2015

VICTOR LUO vs. PACIFIC PATHWAY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a sanctions order against applicant's attorneys. The attorneys argued due process violations based on alleged ex parte contact by the judge. The Board found the applicant's attorneys' petition contained misrepresentations of fact, justifying sanctions. Therefore, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 joint and several sanction against the law firm and its associate for unprofessional conduct and misleading pleadings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJex parte contactdue processbad-faith actionsLabor Code section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561(b)sanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ6918399
Regular
Feb 27, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. AUTOZONE, INC./USF&G, Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT/NUFIC Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of its lien. Despite the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice, the record indicates their representative appeared and signed in for the trial. The WCAB found the petition frivolous, citing the claimant's failure to object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss and misrepresentation of facts. Consequently, the WCAB intends to impose sanctions up to $1,200.00 against the lien claimant and its representative for abuse of process.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of Dismissal of LienLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to DismissDue ProcessHearingWCJBoard Rule 10562Labor Code section 5813Sanctions
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,931 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