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

People v. Felix

The defendant, Felix, was convicted of intentional manslaughter after fatally stabbing Melvin Martinez due to long-standing animosity. The trial court imposed a maximum 25-year sentence. Justice Tom, J.E., dissents from a decision that reduced Felix's sentence, arguing that there are no mitigating circumstances justifying the leniency. The dissent emphasizes the unprovoked and deliberate nature of the killing, Felix's unconvincing claims of self-defense, and his perceived lack of remorse, advocating for the affirmation of the original 25-year judgment. The document details the events leading to the stabbing, witness testimonies, and the medical examiner's findings, underscoring the severity of the crime.

Criminal LawManslaughterSentencingDissenting OpinionAggravated AssaultLack of RemorseSelf-Defense ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionIntentional Killing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.

An employee, Harold Derdiarian, was severely injured at a construction site in Mount Vernon when a driver, James Dickens, suffered an epileptic seizure, crashed through inadequate barricades, struck Derdiarian, and caused boiling liquid enamel to splatter on him. Derdiarian and his wife sued the contractor, Felix Contracting Corporation, and Con Edison for negligence. The trial court found Felix, Dickens, and Con Edison liable. Felix appealed, arguing Dickens's negligence was a superseding cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the question of proximate cause is for the fact-finder, and the risk of a vehicle entering an improperly protected work area was foreseeable, thus Dickens's negligence did not sever the causal link to Felix's liability.

Proximate CauseNegligenceConstruction Site AccidentEpileptic SeizureWorkplace SafetyIntervening CauseForeseeabilityAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLiability
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02960 [138 AD3d 920]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Felix v. Klee & Woolf, LLP

Luis Felix sued Klee & Woolf, LLP for legal malpractice, alleging the firm failed to pursue negligence and Labor Law claims against the City of New York and the Parks Department after he was injured while working at Van Cortlandt Park. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that Felix would not have prevailed in the underlying personal injury action. The court determined that Felix's work of seeding a cricket field did not fall under Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6), and neither the City nor the Parks Department had authority to supervise his work for claims under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Legal malpracticeSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionLabor LawPersonal injuryNotice of claimWorkers' Compensation benefitsConstruction safetyWorkplace accidentProximate cause
References
16
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days, citing a pattern of bad-faith tactics, frivolous actions, and repeated failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionWCAB en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentRepeated misconduct
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Feb 18, 2016

vs. JAVIER JIMENEZ

The Appeals Board suspended the privilege of Javier Jimenez to appear as a representative for 180 days due to his failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Suspend, which was based on non-compliance with prior sanction orders.

WCABLabor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionNotice of IntentionSanction ordersEn banc decisionAdministrative law judgeCompliance180-day suspensionFurther hearing
References
0
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez, Respondent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board suspends the privilege of Javier Jimenez to appear as a party representative for 180 days, with the suspension continuing until he complies with prior sanction orders, following his failure to respond to a Notice of Intention.

WCABJavier JimenezRepresentative PrivilegeSuspensionLabor Code Section 4907En BancNotice Of IntentionSanction OrdersComplianceAdministrative Law Judges
References
1
Case No. ADJ3007363 (OXN 0133349), ADJ1569912 (OXN 0133350)
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

JAVIER VILLANUEVA, JAVIER VILLANUEVA-GOMEZ vs. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., ESIS INSURANCE SERVICES COMPANY

This case involves Javier Villanueva appealing his workers' compensation award from Panda Restaurant Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original decision, with one key amendment. The amended finding clarifies that Villanueva suffered 26% permanent disability in case ADJ1569912, entitling him to weekly payments totaling $18,823.75. Additionally, $2,823.50 is to be withheld from accrued indemnity pending resolution of attorney fee division between current and former counsel.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPANDA RESTAURANT GROUPESIS INSURANCE SERVICES COMPANYRECONSIDERATIONAMENDED DECISIONPERMANENT DISABILITYWEEKLY INDEMNITYSIMULTANEOUS COMMENCEMENTACCRUED INDEMNITYATTORNEY FEE DIVISION
References
0
Case No. ADJ9782943
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

Felix Contreras vs. County of Fresno

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Felix Contreras' petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that Contreras' injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment due to the "Going and Coming Rule." The judge found Contreras' testimony regarding his actions at the time of the accident lacked credibility, citing conflicting accounts and evidence that the stated work purpose was already completed. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations due to observing the witness demeanor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Going and Coming RuleCourse and Scope of EmploymentCredibility DeterminationsApplicant TestimonyEmployer TestimonyPrior Findings of Fact
References
1
Case No. ADJ7397148
Regular
Oct 15, 2013

JAVIER RODRIGUEZ vs. EMPLOYERS DEPOT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Javier Rodriguez's Petition for Reconsideration. Rodriguez alleged inadequate notice of a lien conference, claiming the hearing was improperly converted from a status conference. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the hearing was automatically deemed a lien conference by regulation, requiring payment of a lien activation fee. The underlying case was previously resolved by a Compromise and Release.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder DenyingCompromise and ReleaseLien ConferenceStatus ConferenceLien Activation FeeLabor Code §4903.06Cal. Code. Regs. §10770.1Declaration of ReadinessVenue
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 116 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