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

Diamond D Construction Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Public Works

This decision addresses Diamond D Construction Corp.'s motion for reconsideration, challenging the court's prior denial of a preliminary injunction. The court re-evaluates its stance on Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that Diamond D's claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Department of Labor's enforcement actions is not barred, distinguishing previous cases like Tekkno and Yorktown. While affirming the applicability of the Younger abstention doctrine, the court acknowledges that a 'narrow' exception for bad faith or harassment by the DOL might apply. To resolve factual disputes regarding whether the DOL acted in bad faith or violated Diamond D's substantive due process rights, the court grants the motion for reconsideration in part and orders evidentiary hearings.

Federal CourtEleventh AmendmentYounger AbstentionDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessMotion for ReconsiderationPreliminary InjunctionState SovereigntyEvidentiary Hearing
References
17
Case No. ADJ9602695
Regular
Sep 26, 2019

KELLY MULDROW vs. AMS OUTSOURCING/STAFFCHEX, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ULLICO, SEDGWICK CMS, SENBA USA, INC., MITSUI SUMITOMO

This case concerns applicant Kelly Muldrow's claim for psychiatric injury stemming from her employment. The primary dispute revolves around the applicability of Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which generally requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, remanding the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This is because the prior ruling improperly deferred the threshold issue of section 3208.3(d)'s applicability without fully adjudicating it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKelly MuldrowAMS OutsourcingStaffchexCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAUllicoSedgwick CMSSenba USAMitsui Sumitomo
References
15
Case No. ADJ7826039
Regular
Nov 07, 2014

Jason Horton vs. Oakland Raiders, ACE American Insurance

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contentions. The Board rescinded the finding of industrial psychiatric injury, finding it barred by the six-month employment rule under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Board affirmed the original decision regarding the 15% increase in permanent disability pursuant to Labor Code section 4658(d). Ultimately, the applicant's permanent disability rating was adjusted to 64%, and attorney fees were modified accordingly.

Industrial injuryProfessional football playerCumulative traumaPsychiatric injurySix-month ruleLabor Code § 3208.3(d)Employment contractActual servicePermanent disabilityLabor Code § 4658(d)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nagel v. D & R REALTY CORP.

Bruce Nagel, an elevator safety inspector, suffered injuries after slipping on oil during a two-year safety test. He and his wife sued D & R Realty Corp., the building owner, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), particularly Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d). The claims under §§ 200 and 240 (1) were withdrawn. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling Nagel's work was routine maintenance, not construction, demolition, or excavation under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) protections do not extend to maintenance work outside the construction context.

Elevator accidentLabor LawSection 241(6)Routine maintenanceConstruction workDemolition workExcavation workIndustrial CodeSafety inspectionBuilding owner liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ1499047 (SAC 0273786)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

ROBERT DOVE vs. CONTRACTOR'S LABOR POOL/PRODUCTION FRAMING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GURANTEE ASSOCIATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that denied rejoining CIGA. The applicant sustained a shoulder and spine injury and claims psychiatric sequelae, alleging general employment by Contractors Labor Pool (CLP), insured by CIGA via California Compensation Insurance Company in liquidation, and special employment by Production Framing Systems (PFS), insured by Liberty Mutual. Because the applicant may have worked for CLP for over six months but less than six months for PFS, CIGA is a necessary party to determine liability for potential psychiatric injury, as Labor Code section 3208.3(d) has specific six-month employment requirements. The Board rejoined CIGA to protect its due process rights and promote judicial economy, allowing it to participate in the adjudication of these complex liability issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceGeneral EmploymentSpecial EmploymentCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)Psychiatric InjuryLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyContractors Labor Pool
References
1
Case No. ADJ9162432
Regular
Oct 23, 2017

TEODORO LARIOS vs. EASTBAY EQUITIES, INC. dba WENDY'S OLD FASHIONED HAMBURGERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded lien claims for psychiatric treatment. The defendant argues that Labor Code section 3208.3(d) bars these claims due to insufficient employment duration and that the prior WCAB opinion is res judicata. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The WCAB clarified that while psychiatric conditions may be claimed as compensable consequence injuries post-January 1, 2013, they do not increase permanent impairment ratings, and the six-month employment requirement under section 3208.3(d) still applies unless the treatment was essential for a physical injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Res JudicataMedical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS)Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS)Independent Bill ReviewCompensable Consequence InjuryPsychiatric InjuryPermanent ImpairmentLength of Employment
References
5
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. ADJ7329234; ADJ7432894; ADJ7434559; ADJ7433683
Regular
Dec 02, 2014

KATHY WASSON vs. COUNTY OF PLUMAS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior denial of industrial injury for psyche and heart claims. While applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury due to workplace events, compensation is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h) as it was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions. However, applicant's heart injury, presumed compensable under Labor Code section 3212, remains compensable as the presumption was not rebutted and section 3208.3(h) does not apply. Further proceedings will address the sleep disorder claim and other deferred issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffPsychiatric injuryHypertensionSleep dysfunctionGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)PresumptionLabor Code section 3212Heart trouble
References
24
Case No. ADJ484574 (ANA 0392117)
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

HECTOR ROMAN vs. D L BONE & SONS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The defendant seeks reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that awarded psychiatric injury benefits to an applicant injured within six months of employment. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The core issue is whether the applicant's fall due to a rotted beam, while employed less than six months, constitutes a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" for psychiatric injury. The Board found the fall, though sudden, was not sufficiently extraordinary given the applicant's role as a painter regularly working at heights, thus likely precluding psychiatric benefits under Labor Code § 3208.3(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurybilateral wristsneckbackpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentfurther medical treatmentLabor Code section 3208.3(d)
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,425 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