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. ADJ6968776
Regular
Apr 29, 2013

MARTHA IBARRA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, INC.

This case involves Martha Ibarra's cumulative trauma injury claim against 99 Cents Only Stores. The defendant sought to bar the claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that while the specific condition of prior medical records for the cumulative trauma injury was not met, the injury date being subsequent to notice of termination, as defined by Labor Code section 5412, satisfied the exception under section 3600(a)(10)(D). The Board amended the Findings of Fact to reflect this, affirmed the finding of injury to the upper extremities and spine, and returned the case for further proceedings, while deferring the issue of psychological injury.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3208.3(e)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCumulative Trauma InjuryUpper ExtremitiesSpinePsycheAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
References
0
Case No. ADJ6757162
Regular
Dec 14, 2016

JOSEPH BRABANDER vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns defendant Cedars-Sinai's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation finding. The administrative law judge found the applicant's cumulative trauma claim, filed after his layoff notice, was not barred by the statute of limitations or Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the applicant's date of injury, determined by when he suffered disability and knew it was work-related, occurred after his layoff notice. Therefore, exception (D) to Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) applied.

cumulative traumaStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimspreponderance of the evidencenotice of terminationlayoffknowledge of injurydisabilityoccupational diseases
References
2
Case No. ADJ8067791
Regular
May 28, 2014

SAMUEL POLANCO vs. WEST COAST DRYWALL AND PAINT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found the applicant's date of injury, under Labor Code Section 5412, occurred after his termination notice. This finding established an exception to the post-termination defense under Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)(D), allowing the claim to proceed. The applicant's inability to work, and thus disability, was determined to have manifested after his termination date.

Post-termination defenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 5412Date of injuryCumulative injuryDisabilityEarnings capacityPermanent and stationaryPsychiatric injuriesLabor Code Section 3208.3(e)
References
4
Case No. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
9
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. ADJ9908298
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

ELIZABETH SOTO vs. MOLEX, INC. dba AFFINITY MEDICAL, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify a previous order, rescinding the original Findings and Order. The defendant argued the claim was barred by the post-termination defense, but the WCAB found exceptions applied under Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10)(A) and 3600(a)(10)(D). The WCAB determined the date of injury was March 5, 2015, subsequent to the termination notice, and returned the case for further proceedings to develop the medical record regarding the extent of the applicant's injuries.

post-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D)Labor Code section 5412cumulative traumacompensable disabilityknowledge of industrial causationdate of injurynotice of terminationU.S. HealthWorks
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond D Construction Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Public Works

This decision addresses Diamond D Construction Corp.'s motion for reconsideration, challenging the court's prior denial of a preliminary injunction. The court re-evaluates its stance on Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that Diamond D's claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Department of Labor's enforcement actions is not barred, distinguishing previous cases like Tekkno and Yorktown. While affirming the applicability of the Younger abstention doctrine, the court acknowledges that a 'narrow' exception for bad faith or harassment by the DOL might apply. To resolve factual disputes regarding whether the DOL acted in bad faith or violated Diamond D's substantive due process rights, the court grants the motion for reconsideration in part and orders evidentiary hearings.

Federal CourtEleventh AmendmentYounger AbstentionDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessMotion for ReconsiderationPreliminary InjunctionState SovereigntyEvidentiary Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dugandzic v. New York City School Construction Authority

Mirolsav Dugandzic, a painter, sued multiple defendants, including the NYCSCA, Trataros Construction, and Crowe Construction, after slipping on paint remover at Fort Hamilton High School in 1992. He alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the accident was due to his work, they lacked notice of a dangerous condition, and no Labor Law violation. The court found the motions timely and dismissed the Labor Law section 241(6) claim, as the Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d) was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiff's self-created slippery condition. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Labor Law section 200 claim against some defendants, citing a factual dispute over supervisory control. The City's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it due to a lack of evidence of its supervision or control.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetySummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimConstruction Site AccidentSlippery FloorEmployer LiabilitySupervisory ControlHazardous Materials
References
11
Case No. ADJ3767421 (SFO 0438615)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

MICHELLE ROUTSON vs. JOHN EVANS, D.D.S., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that found it lacked jurisdiction over a petition to transfer structured settlement payment rights. The WCAB rescinded the prior decision, holding that the five-year limitation under Labor Code section 5804 does not apply to commutations of compensation payments. Instead, such matters are governed by Labor Code section 5100, which allows the WCAB to commute payments at any time if certain conditions are met. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to determine if the proposed transfer satisfies section 5100 and related Insurance Code provisions.

Structured settlement transferPetition for ApprovalInsurance Code §10134Labor Code §5804commutationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardjurisdictionrescindedfive-year limitationLabor Code §5100
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,059 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