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. ADJ2971436 (OAK 0253681)
Regular
Sep 25, 2012

CRAIG GONSALVES vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and found no violation of Labor Code section 132a by UPS. The Board determined that the applicant failed to prove UPS discriminated against him by terminating his employment on August 20, 1999, or June 20, 2001. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant did not establish that UPS refused to allow him to return to work between June 26, 2000, and May 23, 2001, due to his industrial injury or that he received disparate treatment. The applicant did not demonstrate the availability of modified duty or that the employer's actions were not necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryTerminationReturn to Work
References
9
Case No. 05-CV-4115
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2008

UFCW Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health & Welfare Fund v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Institutional plaintiffs, primarily third-party payors, filed a class action lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Company. They alleged that Lilly fraudulently marketed its antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa, by misrepresenting its safety and efficacy, downplaying serious side effects like weight gain and diabetes, and promoting off-label uses. The lawsuit claimed these actions led to overpayments for Zyprexa prescriptions. The court certified a class of third-party payors on federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims, specifically for alleged overpricing of Zyprexa during the period of June 20, 2001, to June 20, 2005. Individual payor claims were denied class certification due to potential conflicts of interest, and state consumer protection claims were deferred. The court's decision emphasized that common questions of law and fact predominated, making a class action a superior and manageable method for adjudication.

Class ActionRICO ClaimsPharmaceutical FraudDrug MisrepresentationOff-Label MarketingZyprexa LitigationAntipsychotic DrugsThird-Party Payor ClaimsConsumer ProtectionEconomic Damages
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union Local 100

A motion to dispense with printing was granted, allowing the appeal to be heard upon the original record and typewritten or mimeographed appellants' points. Conditions included serving one copy of the appellants' points upon the attorney for respondents and filing 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies with the court by June 15, 1962, with notice of argument for June 21, 1962. Respondents' points were to be served and filed by June 20, 1962. The decision was concurred by Justices Breitel, Valente, McNally, Eager, and Steuer.

Motion practiceAppealProcedural orderPrinting requirementCourt procedureAppellate DivisionRecord on appealFiling deadlinesOral argumentSubmission
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Local 345 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by an automobile dealership, Heinrich Motors, Inc., against a labor arbitration award concerning improper deductions from salesmen's commissions. The arbitrator found that the employer was violating the collective bargaining agreement by deducting a $25 advertising charge from gross profit before calculating commissions. The main dispute centered on the arbitrator's power to award retroactive repayment of withheld commissions back to September 1977, despite a contractual provision limiting retroactive relief to the date the grievance was filed (June 28, 1979). The court previously remitted the case, asking the arbitrator to justify exceeding the contractual limitation. In his supplemental opinion, the arbitrator found it unconscionable to apply the limitation and deprive employees of commissions withheld before June 28, 1979, citing the intent for peaceful resolution through arbitration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term's confirmation of the supplemental award, holding that the "law of the case" doctrine applies and that the arbitrator's actions were within his powers under Federal labor law. The court also modified the judgment to award interest from the date of the arbitrator's supplemental award (June 18, 1981) instead of the confirmation date (November 20, 1981).

Law of the CaseLabor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRetroactive ReliefArbitrator's PowerCommission DeductionsUnconscionabilityFederal Labor LawGrievance ProcedureInterest Award
References
24
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ6951337 ADJ8735632
Regular
Aug 05, 2013

CALVIN SPEARS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/FIRE DEPARTMENT, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late. The stipulated award was personally served on the defendant's counsel on May 13, 2013. This service established a 20-day deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration, which expired on June 3, 2013. The petition was ultimately filed on June 6, 2013, outside the statutory time limit.

Petition for ReconsiderationPersonally ServedStipulated AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportLabor CodeTime ExtensionRule 10507Dismissed PetitionSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. ADJ3974600 (MON 0334960); ADJ4075150 (MON 0334961); ADJ277095 (MON 0358718)
Regular
Feb 17, 2009

GLADYS JIMENEZ vs. ROSS STAFFING, Dba ULTIMATE STAFFING; ZURICH AMERICA, Administered By NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original award to correct clerical errors. Specifically, the temporary disability period was corrected to June 16, 2005, through June 20, 2005. The award was also clarified to reflect that the defendant is entitled to credit for attorney fees against permanent disability advances. Finally, the defendant was found not liable for medical-legal costs that did not comply with Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGladys JimenezRoss StaffingUltimate StaffingZurich AmericaNovapro Risk SolutionsADJ3974600ADJ4075150ADJ277095Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1975

Utility Workers v. Public Employment Relations Board

The petitioner initiated a proceeding appealing the suspension of their dues deduction privileges for a period of 12 weekly pay periods. This appeal was made against a judgment issued by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, on June 20, 1975. The Supreme Court's judgment had dismissed the original petition. The Appellate Court subsequently affirmed the judgment, with $20 costs and disbursements. Justices Rabin, Cohalan, Margett, Brennan, and Shapiro concurred in this decision.

Dues deduction privilegesSuspensionArticle 78 proceedingAppealsSuffolk CountyAffirmed judgmentJudicial reviewAdministrative actionPetitioner appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ8838881
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

ALEXANDER ENGLISH vs. DALLAS MAVERICKS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, Dallas Mavericks and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed on June 18, 2014, which was untimely. The original decision was issued on April 8, 2014, and the petitioner failed to file within the required 20-day period for personal service. The Board clarified that the 20-day deadline, not 25 days, applied, making the petition due by April 28, 2014.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-day DeadlineWCJ ReportStrom v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8838881Oakland District OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDALLAS MAVERICKS
References
1
Case No. ADJ3193455 (SJO 0234823) ADJ3923827 (SJO 0240720)
Regular
Jul 03, 2009

STEPHEN HERRING vs. STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns CIGA's petition for reimbursement from Zurich regarding workers' compensation benefits paid to Stephen Herring for cumulative trauma injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the arbitrator erred in setting the date of injury as July 20, 1999. The Board determined the legal date of injury for determining liability coverage under Labor Code § 5500.5 is June 13, 2003, when the applicant first understood his disability was work-related. This shifts the one-year liability period to the year preceding June 13, 2003, with other reimbursement issues deferred.

CIGAReliance Insurance CompanyZurich North Americadate of injurycumulative traumaspecific injuryLabor Code § 5500.5Labor Code § 5412reconsiderationStipulated Award
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,502 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