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. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
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. ADJ10038732
Regular
Dec 02, 2016

Deborah Matthews vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after an administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered a new Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) panel. The WCJ found the defendant violated Labor Code section 4062.3 by engaging in ex parte communication with the prior QME. The defendant admitted a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3 but argued a new panel was unwarranted due to applicant forfeiture or the communication's insignificance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding no waiver by the applicant and that the communication was not insignificant. The WCAB emphasized that prejudice is not required to obtain a new panel for such violations.

Labor Code 4062.3Ex parte communicationPQME panelPetition for RemovalAggrieved partyWaiverDoctor shoppingFindings of Fact and OpinionWCJAppeals Board
References
6
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. ADJ11328275
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

DENISE DOYLE vs. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC., ALLMERICA FINANCIAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order allowing the applicant to consult a second physician within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The defendant argued that the MPN physician's release from care was not a dispute over diagnosis or treatment, and Labor Code sections 4061 and 4062, requiring medical-legal evaluations, applied instead. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding it was not taken from a final order as it did not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also noted that even if considered on its merits, the petition would be denied because Labor Code Section 4616.3 and Administrative Director Rule 9785(b)(3) allow an employee to seek a second opinion within the MPN when disputing a release from care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkMPNLabor Code Section 4616.3Second Physician ConsultMedical-Legal EvaluationFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold Issue
References
4
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

Blyer Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The petitioner sought a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, for alleged recognitional or organizational picketing. This picketing was asserted to be in violation of section 10(1) and section 158(b)(7)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The employer, Genmar Electrical Contracting, had recently recognized United Construction Trades & Industrial Employees International Union (UCTIU) as the lawful representative of its employees. The Court found reasonable cause to believe that Local Union No. 3's picketing aimed to force Genmar to recognize their union or compel employees to switch their affiliation, constituting an unfair labor practice. Concluding that injunctive relief was just and proper, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Local Union No. 3 from such picketing.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticePicketingNational Labor Relations ActOrganizational PicketingRecognitional PicketingCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationSection 10(l)
References
10
Case No. ADJ5825581, ADJ9590533
Regular
Apr 13, 2015

ALBERT WAN vs. COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK (SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL), CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant's and defendant's petitions, affirming the trial judge's order. The Board found the defendant violated Labor Code Section 4062.3 by failing to serve sub rosa surveillance video on the applicant 20 days before providing it to the QME, resulting in the testimony and video being stricken. While the applicant sought attorney's fees for this violation, the Board found the conduct was a failure to serve information, not a prohibited "communication" under the statute, thus precluding mandatory attorney's fees under that section. However, the Board admonished defendant's counsel for discovery abuses and allowed the possibility of sanctions under Labor Code Section 5813 if bad faith is found.

Sub rosa videoLabor Code section 4062.3Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)depositiondiscovery violationpetition for removalpetition for reconsiderationattorney's feessanctionsDWC Rule 35
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Region v. W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the electrocution death of a construction worker and the application of Labor Law § 240. The decedent, Grover J. Region, an ironworker employed by McBrearity's Metal Building Erectors, was fatally injured on November 18, 1982, when a crane cable he was helping to operate came into contact with high tension electric lines at a construction site in Ulster County. The plaintiff, administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed a lawsuit against property owner William J. Woodward and contractor W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc., among others, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide proper safety measures for crane operation near electrical hazards. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against Woodward and Woodward Construction, who subsequently appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendants had violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to implement necessary safety precautions for the crane, which was being used as a hoist, thereby incurring absolute liability for the injuries proximately caused.

ElectrocutionConstruction AccidentCrane OperationLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityWorker SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 10,300 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