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. 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. 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. 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

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. E2003-00298-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2003

TGJ & Co. v. Michael E. MaGill

Margaret E. Bowers appealed a trial court judgment that reversed an administrative decision granting her unemployment benefits. Bowers, formerly a restaurant manager for TGJ & Co., Inc. (Arby's), was offered a demotion to an hourly position after performance issues but refused to discuss the offer and never returned to work. The Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development initially found her eligible for benefits, but the Chancery Court for Knox County reversed this, ruling she voluntarily quit without good cause. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Chancery Court's decision, concluding that Bowers' unwillingness to engage in discussions about continued employment and failure to report for a new position disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(1) & (3).

Unemployment CompensationVoluntary QuitGood CauseWork PerformanceDemotionSuitable WorkAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTennessee LawEmployment Security
References
10
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

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 13,387 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