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. ADJ17388371
Regular
Sep 25, 2025

Doug McCullough vs. Modesto Fire Department, Salida Fire Protection Department District

The defendant, Modesto Fire Department, sought reconsideration of a June 12, 2025, Findings of Fact and Order which imposed two penalties on them for unreasonably delayed benefits to the applicant under Labor Code Section 5814.3. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The Board concluded that the defendant had sufficient information to apply the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code Section 3212.1 and unreasonably denied both inter vivos and death claims, thereby warranting the penalties. The decision also noted a failure to provide accurate notice of case transmission to the Appeals Board as required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1).

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909TransmissionSixty-Day PeriodNotice of TransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Report and RecommendationFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 5814.3
References
0
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
Dec 16, 1947

Douds v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local 1

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for injunctive relief against Local 1, alleging violations of Section 8(b), subsection (4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition was based on charges filed by Schenley Distillers Corporation and Jardine Liquor Corporation. A temporary restraining order was initially granted on December 11, 1947, after a hearing. However, upon further hearing on December 16, 1947, the court found a significant change in the factual situation, noting that the labor difficulties had been adjusted and the danger of irreparable damage was no longer present. Consequently, the court vacated the temporary restraining order, stating that it would not pass upon the ultimate merits of the issues at that time.

Injunctive ReliefLabor RelationsNational Labor Relations ActTemporary Restraining OrderVacated OrderUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottLabor DisputeFederal CourtDistrict Court
References
18
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04671 [241 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Santos v. Leeward Living, LLC

Plaintiff Jose Santos was injured after falling through an unguarded attic floor opening during construction, suing the general contractor and fee owner under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment on liability for both sections, partially based on Industrial Code violations. The Appellate Division modified this, affirming liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially under § 241 (6) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [b] [1] [i]), while denying the motion for other Industrial Code sections (12 NYCRR 23-1.15, 23-1.16) as inapplicable. The court also established the fee owner's liability and denied their homeowners' exemption claim.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardUnguarded OpeningAttic Floor FallConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilityFee Owner LiabilityHomeowners' Exemption
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. ADJ6822166
Regular
May 27, 2011

Jackie Thompson vs. Los Angeles Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that a school district police officer was entitled to a cancer presumption for his prostate cancer. The Board found that while the applicant was a peace officer, his authority was defined by Penal Code section 830.32, not section 830.1 as initially determined. Because Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption specifically lists peace officers defined under certain Penal Code sections and does not include those under 830.32, the applicant is not entitled to the presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1Penal Code 830.32Peace OfficerSchool District Police OfficerCancer PresumptionIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWCABLaw Enforcement ActivitiesWilliam Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act
References
3
Case No. ADJ7941040
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

JESSE NICASIO vs. CITY OF MODESTO, Administered by YORK INSURACE SERVICES

The applicant, a former fire chief, sustained industrial injuries to his heart and multiple myeloma. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that his heart trouble was industrially caused, based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212 and the AME's opinion that it developed during employment. Regarding cancer, the Board found the applicant's multiple myeloma developed within the statutory timeframe, making it presumptively compensable under Labor Code section 3212.1, and the defendant failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to benefits for both conditions.

Labor Code section 3212.1heart trouble presumptioncancer presumptionmultiple myelomabenzene exposureleft ventricular hypertrophyfire chieflatency periodmanifestationdevelopment
References
21
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2002

Fuga v. St. Moritz Holding, LLC

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order granting a laborer partial summary judgment against the owner and general contractor for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The laborer sought recovery for personal injuries sustained when a scaffold collapsed. The defendants contested summary judgment, citing the plaintiff's non-compliance with a discovery order to produce coworker addresses. However, the court ruled that the defendants had sufficient time to locate the coworkers and that the requested disclosure was futile. This futility was based on the defendants' own admissions regarding a malfunctioning scaffold part and the absence of a safety harness, rendering coworker testimony irrelevant to liability under section 240 (1). The court also emphasized that comparative negligence is not a valid defense for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation.

Scaffold CollapsePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawStatutory LiabilityDiscovery DisputeCoworker TestimonyFutility of DisclosureComparative NegligenceConstruction Accident
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,797 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