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

County of Orange v. Village of Kiryas Joel

The County of Orange challenged environmental determinations by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel regarding the construction of a public water supply facility and pipeline. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, annulled the determinations, and remitted the matter for a supplemental environmental impact statement. The appellate court modified the judgment, directing the preparation of an amended final environmental impact statement instead of a supplemental one, specifically requiring analysis of wetlands, sewage, wastewater discharge, a phase 1-B archaeological study, and growth-inducing effects. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying the Village's motion to renew opposition to the petition, concluding that while deficiencies existed in the initial environmental review, the lead agency was not required to consider additional alternatives beyond those already identified. The case clarifies that an amended FEIS is appropriate for initial deficiencies, not an SEIS.

Environmental ReviewSEQRA ComplianceCPLR Article 78Wetlands ImpactWastewater DischargeArchaeological StudyGrowth-Inducing EffectsEnvironmental Impact StatementAmended FEISJudicial Discretion
References
19
Case No. 30 AD3d 876
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra M. v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

The plaintiffs, Sandra M. and her husband, appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, dismissing their complaint. Sandra M. was allegedly sexually assaulted by a nursing assistant, Ricardo Cortez, supplied by United Staffing System, Inc., while on suicide watch at the Hospital. The plaintiffs sued the Hospital, United, and Cortez, alleging the Hospital was negligent in its suicide watch policies and its failure to independently evaluate staff provided by United. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order and affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint against the Hospital. The court found the Hospital was not vicariously liable for Cortez's personal tortious acts and had no duty to independently screen employees supplied by United, as it had no prior knowledge of Cortez's propensity for misconduct.

Personal InjurySexual AssaultNegligenceHospital LiabilityVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuicide Watch
References
20
Case No. ADJ8969860
Regular
Jul 28, 2016

Miguel Cortez vs. American Security Force, Inc., The Hartford

This case involves an applicant, Miguel Cortez, who sought workers' compensation benefits for an alleged injury to his left shoulder sustained on May 28, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding. The Board found Cortez failed to meet his burden of proof for a compensable injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. This decision was based heavily on the judge's credibility determination regarding Cortez's inconsistent testimony about the incident and conflicting accounts of the injury provided to medical providers.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationCredibility determinationBurden of proofLabor Code § 3600(a)(10)Industrial injuryCompensable injuryWCJ reportWitness demeanorTerminated employee
References
1
Case No. ADJ9843354, ADJ9340113
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

SANDRA CORTEZ vs. EMPLOYMENT RESOURCES GROUP, INC.; CLAIMS R.M.

This case involves an applicant, Sandra Cortez, and defendants Employment Resources Group, Inc. and Claims R.M. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Cortez's petition for reconsideration and denied her petition for removal. The Board found that the WCJ's decision addressed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. Removal was denied because there was no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board also clarified that a letter to an AME copied to the applicant's attorney was not an ex parte communication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
9
Case No. ADJ9100288
Regular
May 17, 2018

GILBERT CORTEZ (Deceased), NOHEMA CORTEZ (Surviving Spouse & Guardian Ad Litem), et al. vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Claims Administrator)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision concerning death benefits for the deceased employee's children, Andres and Marisa Cortez. The WCAB remanded the case to the administrative law judge to properly join the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and determine the entitlement to and coordination of workers' compensation death benefits with CalPERS special death benefits. The WCAB clarified that the "good cause" standard under *Antrim* applies and that CalPERS benefits may offset workers' compensation benefits to avoid duplicate payments. Further proceedings are required to consider the specific claims of dependency and the impact of CalPERS payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCDCRSCIFCalPERSdeath benefitsdependent childrenspecial death benefitsoffsetAntrim standardLabor Code section 4707
References
7
Case No. ADJ3663514 (LAO 0820528) ADJ4004409 (LAO 0820529)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

JOEL CORTEZ vs. WESTFIELD AMERICAN, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original decision, with amendments. The applicant was found to have 68% permanent disability after apportionment. Fireman's Fund was awarded reimbursement of $31,732.84 as credit against the applicant's permanent disability award. Attorney's fees were set at $5,701.00.

JOEL CORTEZWESTFIELD AMERICANFIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIESWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONAPPORTIONMENTPERMANENT DISABILITYREIMBURSEMENTCREDITARROWWOOD INSURANCE COMPANY
References
0
Case No. ADJ6467721
Regular
Feb 22, 2012

JOEL HERNANDEZ vs. LOS MOLCAJETES, INC.

The applicant, Joel Hernandez, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a prior decision. However, the petitioner has since withdrawn this petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the withdrawn petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCase Number ADJ6467721Bakersfield District OfficeEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyLos Molcates Inc.Applicant Joel HernandezNovember 29 2011 Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ9428267
Regular
Jul 07, 2018

JOHNNY CORTEZ vs. LES SCHWAB TIRE, INC.

The Appeals Board dismissed Johnny Cortez's untimely petition for reconsideration of a stipulated award, as it was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision. However, the Board granted reconsideration on its own motion within the statutory 60-day period. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the stipulations should be approved. This action was taken to address the applicant's claims regarding incorrect temporary disability payments and improper notification of PQME rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeStipulated AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityTimelinessJurisdictional Time LimitReconsideration on Own Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2000

Goldberg v. Lorusso

Joel Goldberg, a realtor, sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a German Shepard named Lupo at the home of Robert and Rose LoRusso, which he was attempting to preview for sale. Despite a "Beware of Dog" sign, the property listing indicated the dog would be secured, yet Lupo was unrestrained due to a communication lapse. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no prior vicious propensities from the dog. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating Goldberg's complaint. The court ruled that a factual issue existed regarding the foreseeability of danger posed by an unrestrained dog in a house listed for public viewing by unaccompanied realtors, noting that the defendants usually secured the dog, indicating their awareness of potential issues.

Dog attackPersonal injuryNegligencePremises liabilityProperty owner liabilitySummary judgmentForeseeabilityRealtor injuryGerman ShepardAppellate review
References
8
Case No. ADJ2147971
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

JOEL DE LEON vs. BIG LOTS; SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal by applicant Joel De Leon against Big Lots and Sedgwick CMS. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and adopted the Judge's reasoning. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalDenial of RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionPre-trial Order
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 90 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