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. WCK0071378
Regular
Aug 07, 2008

KEN RYERSON vs. NESTLE COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK

This case involves a worker's compensation appeal concerning temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation rates. However, the parties submitted a compromise and release agreement for $140,000.00 to settle all claims, including potential death benefits for dependents. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision, and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the applicant's best interest, considering the release of death benefits and the absence of specific vocational rehabilitation protections.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation Delay RateThomas FindingRogers ReleaseDeath BenefitsCumulative Industrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeckSpineBack
References
2
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. ADJ4139709
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

JORGE HERRERA vs. ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration from a non-final Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which is procedurally improper. Simultaneously, a different judge approved a Compromise and Release Agreement on the same day the petition was filed, an action beyond the judge's authority once the petition was pending. The Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration and, on its own motion, granted reconsideration of the approved Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Order Approving Compromise and Release was vacated and the matter remanded for further consideration of the agreement.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalMandatory Settlement ConferenceCompromise and Release AgreementNotice of Intention to DismissWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJEAMSLabor CodeFinal Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ3817494 (LAO 0863722)
Regular
Jun 21, 2017

CHRISTINE RANGEL vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC

Applicant Rangel petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's award finding industrial injury and $63\%$ permanent disability, arguing she was permanently and totally disabled. Following a Commissioners' Settlement Conference, the parties executed a Compromise and Release agreement. The Board, after reviewing the agreement and the record, found it adequate and in the applicant's best interest, rescinded the prior award, and approved the Compromise and Release. This action included releasing any potential death benefit claims and approving the agreed-upon attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristine RangelHoneywell International IncZurich North AmericaMatrix Absence Management IncReconsiderationFindings and AwardCardiovascular system injuryPsyche injurySleep disorder
References
0
Case No. ADJ4241829 (SBR 0329480) ADJ2740209 (SBR 0329464)
Regular
Jan 03, 2017

DENNIS BAKANOSKI (DEC.) vs. UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO., BECHTEL POWER CORP., INS. CO. OF THE STATE OF PENN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award because the applicant and defendants reached a Compromise and Release agreement. The original award addressed temporary and permanent disability benefits for a deceased worker, Dennis Bakanoski, and determined liability between two employers and their insurers. The WCAB rescinded the prior award and remanded the case to the trial level to consider the Compromise and Release agreement. If approved, the agreement will resolve the outstanding claims; otherwise, a new award will be issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerCumulative TraumaCompromise and ReleaseRescinded Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. ADJ7111686
Regular
Apr 14, 2010

DANIEL AVENDANO, JR. vs. RAYDON, INC., ENDURANCE INS. CO., FIRSTCOMP.

The defendant sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release agreement, arguing the WCJ erred by not allowing a credit for permanent disability advances due to mutual mistake. The agreement settled the applicant's industrial injuries for $\$12,797.50$. However, the Compromise and Release form contained an ambiguous clause regarding permanent disability advances, with blanks left unfilled by the defendant. Because the defendant drafted the agreement and the applicant was unrepresented, any ambiguity is construed against the defendant. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied, and the defendant is not entitled to a credit for permanent disability advances.

Permanent disability advancesCompromise and ReleaseMutual mistake of factWCABLabor Code section 5003AmbiguityUnrepresented applicantContract interpretationCreditIndustrial injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ3669487
Regular
Jul 21, 2015

JAMES WILLIAMS vs. BARKER MANAGEMENT, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant, James Williams, sought reconsideration of an order disapproving a compromise and release agreement he unilaterally submitted for approval. The agreement, purportedly for $17,835,417.18, was only signed by the applicant and did not reflect the agreement of the defendants, including the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) who offered to settle for $6,000. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, adopting the WCJ's report, because a valid compromise and release requires mutual assent and signatures from all parties. The Board also admonished the applicant for his misleading submission, citing potential sanctions under Labor Code Section 5813.

Order Disapproving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCJCompromise and ReleaseUncontestedSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code Section 5813(a)SanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,466 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