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. 2018 NY Slip Op 08577
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2018

Quigley v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Plaintiff Thomas Quigley sustained injuries after slipping on snow-covered pipes located directly outside his employer's work site shanty. The case involved claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) based on alleged violations of Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), (e)(1), and (e)(2), as well as common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200. The court modified a prior order, denying defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), finding an issue of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a walkway. It affirmed the dismissal of the claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)(1) as inapplicable to outdoor areas, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)(2), 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a)(1), common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 200. The appellate court concluded that defendants failed to demonstrate lack of notice regarding the dangerous condition.

Slip and fallConstruction site accidentLabor LawIndustrial CodePremises liabilityDangerous conditionSummary judgmentDuty to warnNoticeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. ADJ14297412; ADJ14297399
Regular
Sep 29, 2025

DAVID OLIVAS vs. ECKLES AUTO BODY, INC.; PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The case involves David Olivas, an auto body worker, who sustained specific and cumulative trauma injuries and settled his claims via a Joint Compromise and Release. The defendant, Eckles Auto Body, Inc. and Preferred Professional Insurance Company, denied payment for interpreting services provided by Marjorie Martinez, citing untimely submission under Labor Code section 4603.2(b). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed that Labor Code section 4603.2(b) does not apply to interpreting services for Compromise and Release settlement documents, as it is limited to medical treatment-related services, concluding such services fall under a different regulatory framework for costs which lacks the 12-month billing requirement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)transmission date60-day deadlinenotice of transmissionReport and RecommendationState Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dorsett)Labor Code section 4663
References
4
Case No. ADJ 3415663 [SDO 0253511] ADJ 2801520 [SDO 0253510]
Regular
Sep 02, 2008

NORMA J. CALLOWAY vs. SAN DIEGO TRANSIT COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION

Reconsideration granted; WCJ decision affirmed except for amendment to defer attorney's fees and Labor Code section 5814 penalties, and correcting the reference to Labor Code section 4616.2 to Rule 9767.9(e)(2).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Labor Code Section 4616.2Administrative Director Rule 9767.9Serious Chronic ConditionPrimary Treating PhysicianAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 4062Labor Code Section 5814.5Agreed Medical Evaluator
References
9
Case No. ADJ9285089
Regular
Aug 24, 2016

ANA RAMIREZ FARIAS vs. ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board affirmed an arbitrator's decision that applicant Ana Ramirez Farias must transfer medical care to her employer's exclusive provider network, despite her continued treatment with Dr. Arthur Harris. The majority found that the collective bargaining agreement's provisions on medical treatment, negotiated under Labor Code section 3201.5, take precedence over general Medical Provider Network (MPN) statutes like section 4603.2(a)(2). The dissenting opinion argued that the collective bargaining agreement diminishes the applicant's statutory right to treatment and that section 4603.2(a)(2) should apply due to the agreement's silence on transfer of care disputes.

Labor Code section 3201.7Labor Code section 3201.5(b)Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)self-procure treatmentmedical controlexclusive provider networkcarve-out agreementMedical Provider Network (MPN)collective bargaining agreementagreed list of providers
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2001

Padilla v. Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corp.

This case involves a plaintiff, a laborer, who suffered an injury while working on a renovation project for Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corporation, whose construction manager was Humphreys & Harding, Inc. The plaintiff was guiding a concrete sump housing into an excavation vault when it slipped, amputating two toes. The plaintiff initiated an action against the owner, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR part 23). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against Humphreys & Harding for indemnification. The motion court initially dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, but on appeal, the decision was reversed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently raised triable issues of fact regarding violations of Industrial Code sections 23-9.2 (g), 23-9.4 (e) (1) and (2), and 23-9.2 (b) (2), which were concrete enough to support a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Construction accidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code violationsSummary judgment appealAppellate reviewNondelegable dutyTriable issues of factPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyBackhoe operation
References
8
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

DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC

This case concerns motions for reargument and renewal following a workplace accident. Plaintiff Cesar DeGabriel was injured when an I beam fell on his leg at a construction site. Plaintiff sued defendants Rockledge Scaffold Corp., Strongrew Realty, LLC, and Strong Place Realty, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Defendant Rockledge moved to reargue the partial denial of its summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff cross-moved to reargue and renew the dismissal of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the court's finding regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2). The court denied Rockledge's motion, finding issues of fact regarding negligent stacking of I beams under Labor Law § 200. The court also denied plaintiff's motions, ruling that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the I beam was stationary, and Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) did not apply, suggesting § 23-2.1 was more relevant. Both the defendant's and plaintiff's motions were ultimately denied.

Workplace accidentLabor Law claimsSummary judgment motionReargumentRenewal motionFalling object injuryConstruction site safetyCommon-law negligenceIndustrial Code violationsPremises liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. ADJ408254 (STK 0196694)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

CLIFFORD E. SILVA (deceased) LINDA SILVA (widow) vs. DAVINDER JAGPAL, DBA D-BEST EXPRESS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case clarifies that the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF) is shielded from penalties and sanctions under Labor Code section 5813, even for delayed payment of attorney fees, due to the specific limitations of liability in Labor Code section 3716.2. The Court of Appeal reversed a prior decision that would have allowed sanctions against the UEF for its tardiness in paying an applicant's attorney fee. Therefore, the UEF is not liable for the requested sanction in this matter.

RemittiturUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 3716.2Attorney's FeesDeath BenefitStipulations with Request for AwardCourt of Appeal OpinionWillful or Bad Faith Actions
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,284 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