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. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. ADJ18376723
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories
References
12
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. ADJ7497019
Regular
Mar 14, 2019

ROBERT WILLIAM BATES vs. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding the applicant sustained two cumulative heart injuries as a deputy sheriff. The defendant sought to apportion permanent disability between these injuries, citing Labor Code section 4664(a) and the *Benson* case. However, the Board ruled that Labor Code section 4663(e) prohibits apportionment to causation for injuries presumed industrial under Labor Code section 3212, overriding general apportionment rules. Therefore, the applicant's full permanent disability rating was awarded without apportionment.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryHeart Trouble PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212ApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663(e)Benson v. WCABDeputy SheriffPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
15
Case No. ADJ6743994
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

STANLEY HOLDER vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the defendant's. The WCAB found the applicant's heart condition to be industrially caused based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.5, overriding the AME's fluctuating opinion. Permanent disability was increased from 4% to 20% and apportionment was disallowed under Labor Code section 4663(e). Finally, the defendant was denied a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658 because they failed to strictly prove an offer of regular work in the statutorily prescribed form and manner.

Industrial injuryDeputy SheriffCirculatory systemHeart diseasePermanent disabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.5Heart trouble presumption
References
6
Case No. ADJ1 0277951
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

DANNY HILL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, legally uninsured and adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant, Department of Transportation, sought to compel the applicant, Danny Hill, to disclose all prior permanent disabilities and physical impairments under Labor Code section 4663(d). The WCJ initially denied the defendant's petition, finding no good cause. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's denial, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ's denial unsupported, as Labor Code section 4663(d) unequivocally requires such disclosure upon request.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Compel DisclosureLabor Code section 4663(d)permanent disabilitiesphysical impairmentsWCJ denialAppeals Boardtrial levelmedical treatmentapplicant disclosure
References
2
Case No. ADJ3416937 (SRO 0141443) ADJ4476347 (SRO 0118020)
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

TIMOTHY ROBINSON vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns apportionment of permanent disability for an injured correctional officer. The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his neck, resulting in a 12% permanent disability after initial apportionment. The WCJ calculated a total permanent disability of 43%, then apportioned 20% to non-industrial factors under Labor Code section 4663. Further apportionment occurred for a prior low back injury under Labor Code section 4664, using a converted rating from the old schedule to the new AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding no prohibition against applying both section 4663 and section 4664 apportionment, and deeming the prior injury properly converted and subtracted. A dissenting opinion argued that the older rating schedule's "overlap" concept is incompatible with the current AMA Guides method, and that the defendant failed to prove overlap for the prior injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of SonomaTimothy RobinsonCorrectional OfficerIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ8887982
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

ALVARO VIRGEN vs. COSTA VIEW FARM 2, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves sanctions imposed on attorney Kyle K. Neilsen under Labor Code § 5813. Neilsen's apology for contemptuous remarks about a Workers' Compensation Judge was deemed insufficient as he continued to justify his behavior. The Board found his attempt to excuse his actions indicated a lack of appreciation for the severity of his offense. Consequently, Neilsen was ordered to pay $950.00 in sanctions to the General Fund.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsLabor Code § 5813WCJ EllisContemptuous statementsJustificationFrustrationPleadingTravelOrange County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,004 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