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. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03346 [205 AD3d 573]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

Lopez v. Halletts Astoria LLC

Plaintiff, an S&E employee, was injured at a construction site while fixing a misaligned hoist elevator when an adjacent ascending hoist elevator struck his foot. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and granted plaintiff summary judgment on those claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-6.1 (c) (1) and denied plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) (Industrial Code § 23-6.3 (g)) claims. The court found issues of fact regarding whether permitting concurrent hoist operation was a proximate cause of the injury and whether defendant New Line Structures & Development LLC had the authority to control the activity. The decision also affirmed the severance of the third-party action due to inexcusable delay.

Construction accidentHoist elevator injuryPersonal injuryLabor Law claimsIndustrial Code violationsProximate causeSummary judgmentThird-party liabilityAppellate reviewForeseeability of risk
References
12
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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that his injury claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board agreed that the applicant's claims were barred under Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10) and 3208.3(e) as they were filed after notice of termination and no exceptions applied. The Board also determined that the defendant's denial letter encompassed both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b).

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJRalphs Grocery Companyindustrial injurypsycheheadright shoulderneck
References
0
Case No. ADJ10383637
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

BRENDA RICH vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The defendant appeals an award of temporary disability and medical reimbursement. The applicant's psychiatric injury claim was found barred by the post-termination provisions of Labor Code section 3208.3(e). However, the initial finding incorrectly granted benefits based on the defendant's failure to act after receiving a medical evaluator's report, as per Labor Code section 4063. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and ruled that no compensation is owed due to the claim being time-barred and a post-termination claim.

post-termination claimLabor Code section 3208.3(e)psychiatric injurytemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical carestatute of limitationsformal medical evaluationqualified medical evaluatorpanel selectiondeclaration of readiness to proceed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought a temporary injunction against LOCAL UNION NO. 3 I.B.E.W., alleging unfair labor practices related to secondary boycotts. The charges stemmed from picketing by union members at various New York City apartment buildings, where New Power Wire & Electric Corporation and P & L Services, Inc. had electrical rewiring contracts. The union picketed, claiming New Power violated its agreement by employing non-union electricians. The Board contended this picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. However, the court, applying the Moore Dry Dock Company principles, found no sufficient evidence that the union induced neutral employees or coerced building owners. The court concluded the picketing was informational and confined to the primary dispute's situs, thus not violating the Act. Consequently, the Board's application for a preliminary injunction was denied.

National Labor Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementMoore Dry Dock TestLandrum-Griffin ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,437 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