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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ6757406
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

ESPERANZA CARRILLO vs. INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. (formerly WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER), REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing several lien claims. The dismissal was due to the lien claimants' failure to pay the required lien activation fee as mandated by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Board also admonished certain lien claimants for failing to properly notify the employer and the Board of changes in their representatives as required by Labor Code section 4903.6(b). The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, found the lien claimants' arguments regarding constitutionality and procedural due process to be without merit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantsLabor Code section 4903.06Lien Activation FeeDismissal of LiensDue ProcessSB 899SB 863EAMS
References
4
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. ADJ7446809
Regular
Apr 17, 2013

JOE RAMIREZ vs. THE KROEGER COMPANY/RALPHS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision dismissing Amy Swei's lien claim. The dismissal was based on the lien claimant's failure to pay a mandatory $100 lien activation fee prior to the scheduled lien conference, as required by Labor Code Section 4903.06(a)(4). The administrative law judge found the fee was paid after the 8:30 AM conference commenced, making the payment untimely. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning, emphasizing the clear language of the Labor Code mandating payment before the conference.

WCABADJ7446809Petition for ReconsiderationDWCemergency rule 10208(a)Labor Code section 4903(b)lien activation feeDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedlien conferenceOrders Dismissing Lien Claim
References
1
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. ADJ7350560
Regular
May 21, 2013

ANDREA BARRERA vs. PET SMART, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing Expert Medical Management's lien. The lien, filed before January 1, 2013, was subject to a lien activation fee under Labor Code Section 4903.06(a). Expert Medical Management failed to pay this fee, despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of their lien claim. The Appeals Board adopted the judge's report, which found the lien claimant's arguments regarding Labor Code Section 4903(b) amendments and penalty payments irrelevant to the activation fee requirement.

Lien activation feePetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code §4903.06(a)Medical-legal expensesLabor Code §4903(b)Expert Medical ManagementWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDewayne MarshallStipulations with Request for Award
References
1
Case No. 2015-06-1358
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2016

Watson, Reginald v. Labor Smart

Reginald Watson, an employee, sustained head and back injuries in a work-related fall on July 18, 2015, while working for Labor Smart. Labor Smart failed to timely provide medical care, leading Watson to seek unauthorized treatment. The court found Labor Smart violated workers' compensation law by not offering a panel of physicians and referred the matter for a civil penalty. Despite some medical uncertainty regarding the exact cause of headaches, the court credited Watson's and his fiancée's testimony, concluding he was likely to prove his inability to work since September 1, 2015, due to the accident. Consequently, the court ordered Labor Smart to provide temporary total disability benefits to Mr. Watson from September 2, 2015, until he is no longer eligible.

Temporary Total DisabilityExpedited HearingMedical Treatment DelayWorkers' Compensation LawCausation of InjuryPost-Traumatic HeadachesSpinal InjuryEmployer NegligenceCivil PenaltyTennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
References
7
Case No. 03-07-00661-CR; 03-07-00662-CR; 03-07-00663-CR; D-1-DC-06-900135; D-1-DC-06-900136; D-1-DC-06-900383
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2008

State v. Timothy Carney

The State of Texas appealed the district court's orders quashing indictments against Carol Wiesman, Donna Iverson, and Timothy Carney. The appellees were accused of securing workers' compensation insurance policies by deception, valued at $200,000 or more, under Texas Penal Code § 32.46. The district court had concluded that under the in pari materia doctrine, the prosecutions should have been brought under the more specific Labor Code § 418.002(a), which criminalizes fraud in obtaining workers' compensation insurance. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's orders, ruling that Penal Code § 32.46 and Labor Code § 418.002 are not in pari materia because they do not share the same purpose or objectives, nor do they have identical critical elements of proof. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Criminal LawAppealsStatutory InterpretationIn Pari MateriaWorkers' Compensation FraudFraud by DeceptionPenal CodeLabor CodeIndictmentReversal
References
24
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

Ferreira v. Village of Kings Point

A plaintiff was injured when a trench collapsed during water main repairs. He initiated an action against the Village of Kings Point and Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to the Village on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that trench collapses are not within its ambit. However, the court erred by granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 and 23-4.4, relied upon by the plaintiff, were deemed sufficiently specific to support the claim. The case examines owner liability under Labor Law and the specificity required for Industrial Code violations.

Trench collapseLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.2Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.4Owner liabilitySummary judgmentNondelegable dutyConstruction site accidentExcavation safety
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 11,674 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