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

District Council No. 9 v. APC Painting, Inc.

Plaintiff District Council No. 9 (the Union) initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act to enforce several arbitration awards against APC Painting, Inc., its related APC and Apollo entities, and individual Gregory Fucci. The Union sought to confirm awards from the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) regarding violations of a collective bargaining agreement, including underpayment of wages and employment of non-union workers. Defendants moved to dismiss claims against Fucci and the Apollo entities, arguing non-participation in arbitration and denial of alter ego liability. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied the defendants' motion, allowing the alter ego theory to be pursued, and granted the Union's motion for partial summary judgment. The court confirmed the arbitration awards against the APC entities, affirming the limited judicial review of such awards and rejecting defendants' objections.

Labor LawArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRA Section 301Alter Ego DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissWage ViolationsFringe Benefits
References
85
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06413
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Cunha v. Crossroads II

Evandro Cunha, a laborer, sustained personal injuries at a construction site when an excavator rolled over his legs. He sued Crossroads II, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on several Industrial Code provisions, specifically 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k), 23-9.4 (h) (4), 23-9.4 (h) (5), and 23-9.5 (c). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5), and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment regarding the other cited Industrial Code provisions.

Labor LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentExcavator AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety RegulationsPrima Facie CaseLiability
References
12
Case No. ADJ8581135
Regular
Jun 30, 2015

JUAN SOSA vs. DIAMOND STAFFING SERVICES, LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Applicant Juan Sosa. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of the WCJ's decision, with extensions for weekends or holidays. The petition was filed on June 30, 2015, which was beyond the permissible filing period after the June 3, 2015 decision. The WCAB lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DecisionJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailProof of FilingExpiration of TimeDismissal OrderLabor Code Sections
References
4
Case No. ADJ8822025
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

JASON FLICK vs. A AND M ENGINEERING, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether a lien filed by United Health Services (United) was timely under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). Defendant Compwest argued the lien was barred because it was filed over 18 months after services ended. The Board determined that the 18-month period expired on June 1, 2015, making United's June 2, 2015 lien untimely. Therefore, United's lien claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimLabor Code section 4903.5(a)Statute of limitationsStipulation and AwardReconsiderationWCJAdministrative judgeCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure section 12Timeliness
References
3
Case No. N-4317/92
Regular Panel Decision

In re Oneida Q.

In a child protective proceeding, the father appealed three dispositional orders from June 9, 1993, and fact-finding orders from February 22, 1993, which found Racielli C. to be an abused and neglected child, and Arodi C. and Hanameel C. to be neglected children. The mother, Oneida Q., appealed a dispositional order from June 9, 1993, which found her to have neglected Racielli C. The appellate court reversed the fact-finding order against Oneida Q. concerning the neglect of Racielli C. and dismissed that part of the petition. However, the court affirmed the dispositional orders against the father, finding that the determination of sexual abuse against his daughter Racielli C. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the child's out-of-court statements corroborated by reenactment with dolls. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the mother's neglect of Racielli C. by a preponderance of the evidence, as there was no indication she knew or should have known of imminent danger.

Child protective servicesChild abuseChild neglectSexual abuseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate reviewSufficiency of evidencePreponderance of evidenceOut-of-court statementsCorroboration
References
7
Case No. ADJ9546016
Regular
Sep 04, 2015

JAMES ISBORN vs. US TOOL GRINDING, INC., ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior June 9, 2015, Findings and Order. This grant is for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future correspondence related to the petition must be filed with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not the district office or e-filed. Trial-level documents unrelated to the petition should continue to be filed as usual, but settlements require prompt notification of the WCAB.

IsbornUS Tool GrindingArgonaut InsuranceADJ9546016Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderJune 9 2015statutory time constraintsfactual issueslegal issues
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xue Ming Wang v. Abumi Sushi Inc.

Plaintiff Xue Ming Wang sued Abumi Sushi Inc. and Qing Zhong Li for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York General Business Law § 349 violations, stemming from his employment as a delivery worker. The core legal dispute centered on whether the defendants, who acquired the restaurant's assets in June 2015, were liable for violations predating the sale under successor liability doctrines. The Court considered both traditional common-law and federal common-law 'substantial continuity' tests. It concluded that the traditional test did not apply due to lack of ownership continuity, and under the 'substantial continuity' test, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had notice of the alleged pre-sale violations. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed claims related to pre-June 2, 2015 conduct against the appearing defendants.

Successorship LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGeneral Business Law § 349Wage and Hour ViolationsAsset SaleConstructive NoticeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Velji v. Rural Farms Workers Opportunity

The employer and its carrier appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from June 9, 1982, which denied their request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a disability period. The carrier had filed C-9 forms indicating lost time, full wages paid, and specifically requested reimbursement. The Board denied this, asserting that a C-9 form could not be used for a reimbursement claim, thereby adding an unauthorized limitation to Section 25 (subd 4, par [a]) of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court found the Board’s rationale irrational, especially since the C-9 forms explicitly requested reimbursement. The court reversed the Board’s decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursement ClaimWage PaymentStatutory InterpretationC-9 FormAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalEmployer RightsCarrier ReimbursementDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. ADJ9271759
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

JIMMIE HARTMAN vs. TOWN OF SCOTIA COMPANY PACIFIC LUMBER

This case involves a clerical error in the date of service for a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board's May 10, 2015 decision incorrectly listed the service date as May 10, 2015. The Board has corrected this clerical error to reflect the accurate service date of June 10, 2015. This correction was made without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be corrected at any time.

Clerical errorDate of serviceCorrectionAppeals BoardReconsiderationSupplemental ProceedingsOrder Denying PetitionAmended dateWorkers' CompensationTown of Scotia
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,611 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