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. ADJ4053275 (VNO 0464664) ADJ4607837 (VNO 0464665) ADJ1300714 (VNO 0464666)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

KAREN TAMBARA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – LAC/USC MEDICAL CENTER

The Appeals Board initially intended to sanction Daniel Escamilla and the Legal Service Bureau (LSB) for filing a frivolous petition for removal based on inaccurate information. However, after reviewing their response, the Board rescinded the sanction. Escamilla's reliance on EDEX data for calendar status, though not fully verified, was deemed not unreasonable under the circumstances presented. The case was then returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionFrivolous PetitionLegal Service BureauDaniel EscamillaEDEXStatus ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLab. Code
References
1
Case No. ADJ2304167
Regular
Apr 25, 2013

JOSE SAUCEDO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/LAC USC, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns Jose Saucedo's workers' compensation claim against the County of Los Angeles for psychological injury due to alleged workplace harassment. The applicant claimed his serious psychiatric issues, including schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, were work-related. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. This decision was based on the judge finding the defense medical reports more persuasive, as they attributed the applicant's condition to pre-existing Navy service rather than employment. The Board affirmed that a single physician's relevant opinion can constitute substantial evidence, even if it conflicts with other medical opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSubstantial EvidencePlace v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Psychological InjuryHarassmentSchizophreniaAuditory HallucinationsCausationQualified Medical Examiner
References
1
Case No. ADJ3627123 (VNO 0405505)
Regular
Apr 27, 2017

RODOLFO TIRONA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an Order Allowing Lien. The original judge vacated that order but did so after the statutory 15-day period for amendment had expired, making the vacating order void. However, the WCAB affirmed the vacating order, deeming the late service a clerical error and concluding the judge intended to timely rescind the original lien order. Consequently, the Order Allowing Lien has been rescinded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing LienVacating OrderWCJWCAB Rule 10859Clerical MistakeAffirmRosa TironaCounty of Los Angeles
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1990

Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem

This case concerns an amended order regarding the award of attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court re-affirmed its previous finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' and that no 'special circumstances' existed to deny the award, rejecting arguments regarding defendants' good faith, plaintiff's financial ability, or third-party contributions. The court then determined the reasonableness of the fees, finding the hours expended and the hourly rate to be appropriate. Despite the 'lodestar fee' calculation, the court, exercising its discretion, reduced the final award to prevent overpricing litigation, ultimately granting $318,977.78 in attorney's fees and $73,022.22 in disbursements and expenses.

Civil RightsAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySpecial CircumstancesLodestar MethodDisbursementsExpert Witness FeesSection 1983Section 1988Exclusionary Zoning
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 1996

Mark G. v. Sabol

Williams, J., dissents in part from the majority, asserting that plaintiffs' claims under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) are viable. The dissent argues that the 1994 amendment to 42 USC § 1320a-2 and the Supreme Court's decision in Blessing v Freestone clarify that Suter v Artist M. does not broadly preclude private rights of action under state plan provisions of the AACWA. Specifically, the judge finds that 42 USC § 671 (a)(16), related to case plans and review systems for children in foster care, creates an enforceable federal right under 42 USC § 1983. Additionally, the dissent argues that the G. family's claims under the State Social Services Law and for negligence due to a special relationship, and certain F. family claims under Social Services Law and the State Constitution, should be reinstated, citing failures by defendants to provide statutorily mandated services and protection to children in their care. The opinion concludes by emphasizing the importance of judicial enforcement to ensure accountability and protect vulnerable children.

Child WelfareFederal StatutesState StatutesPrivate EnforcementSection 1983 LitigationFoster Care SystemChild ProtectionGovernment LiabilityJudicial ReviewStatutory Amendments
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1999

STS Management Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The plaintiffs, two limousine companies and their owner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which dismissed their causes of action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and several employees. The plaintiffs had alleged retaliatory tax assessments and sought damages under 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985, and 18 USC § 1962 (RICO). The Supreme Court's dismissal of the claims was affirmed on appeal, holding that the Department of Taxation was not a 'person' under federal statutes and not an 'enterprise' under RICO, and that the individual defendants had minimal involvement or lacked requisite fraudulent intent for RICO claims.

civil rightsRICOracketeeringtaxationretaliationdismissalappellate courtsovereign immunitystatutory interpretationenterprise liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1987

Kross v. Perales

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to compel the New York City Department of Social Services (NYCDSS) to reinstate medical assistance and food stamp benefits, following a "Decision After Fair Hearing." The NYCDSS subsequently complied. The petitioner then sought attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988, arguing he prevailed and that the NYCDSS delayed compliance. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the application for attorney's fees. On appeal, the order and judgment were affirmed, as the court found the petitioner had not established a bona fide civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 or demonstrated that his claim, concerning the administrative application of State statutes, was substantial enough.

CPLR article 78Attorney's Fees42 USC § 198842 USC § 1983Medical AssistanceFood StampsSocial Services LawAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureCivil Rights Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Horsford

This case addresses an application by defendants to vacate a July 8, 1999 judgment and compel plaintiffs' counsel to provide a taxpayer identification number to Allstate Insurance Company for a $10,000 settlement payment following a motor vehicle accident. Allstate argued that IRS codes (26 USC § 6045(f)) mandated the identification number, citing federal tax requirements for payments to attorneys. The court, however, found insufficient evidence and no direct precedent from the cited Burda v Ecker Co. case regarding 26 USC § 6045(f). Consequently, the court denied most of the defendants' application but did grant a reduction of $300 in taxed costs from the original judgment, noting the absence of a trial.

SettlementTaxpayer Identification NumberAllstate InsuranceMotor Vehicle AccidentJudgmentLegal FeesInternal Revenue CodeCPLRApplication DeniedApplication Granted in Part
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. State

The plaintiff, a state employee, was terminated from the Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD) after allegedly reporting improper governmental practices, including a patient's death. He subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting violations of the public employee whistleblower statute (Civil Service Law § 75-b) and 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his first and third causes of action, and removed individual defendants from the second. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the third cause of action, ruling that Labor Law § 740 (7)'s election of remedies provision does not apply to a 42 USC § 1983 claim against a public employer. However, the dismissal of the individual defendants from the second cause of action was affirmed, as OMRDD, the governmental entity, was already being sued directly.

Whistleblower ProtectionPublic Employee RightsRetaliation ClaimCivil Service LawLabor LawFirst Amendment Violation42 U.S.C. § 1983Supremacy ClauseElection of RemediesOfficial Capacity Suit
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doin v. North American Carbide of New York, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals concerning a plaintiff who was terminated from employment after sustaining a leg injury. The plaintiff initially filed a complaint alleging violations of 42 USC, breach of an employment contract, a violation of Executive Law § 296 for disability discrimination, and a tort claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. Special Term dismissed the 42 USC, breach of contract, and tort causes of action, but denied dismissal of the Executive Law claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the tort cause of action, noting the lack of extreme and outrageous conduct for an intentional tort and the absence of a recognized tort for abusive discharge of an at-will employee in New York. However, the court concluded that a material issue of fact remained regarding the Executive Law § 296 claim, precluding summary judgment.

Disability discriminationEmployment terminationSummary judgmentExecutive Law § 296Workers’ Compensation Law § 120At-will employmentIntentional tortEmotional distressCross appealsBreach of contract
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 67 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