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. 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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
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

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. SAC 0343628
Regular
Feb 25, 2008

LILIAN WILKINSON vs. VETERANS HOME and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, striking the finding of unreasonable delay and the penalty awarded by the WCJ. While affirming the allowance of Dr. Pazdel's lien, the Board deferred the issue of penalties and interest under Labor Code section 4603.2. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on penalties and interest, noting that penalties under Labor Code section 5814 are owed to the applicant, not lien claimants, and that applicant's right to penalties was likely waived in the prior stipulation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersIndustrial InjuryCertified Nursing AssistantLow Back InjuryRight Hip InjuryStipulations with Request for AwardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 5814
References
3
Case No. ADJ1184992
Regular
Feb 10, 2015

KATHLEEN MURPHY vs. PETSMART, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a penalty against Petsmart, Inc. for allegedly unreasonably delaying dental treatment. The Board found that Petsmart had no obligation to pay for the dental surgery in advance, as dictated by Labor Code section 4603.2, which requires payment within 45 days after services are provided. While the treating oral surgeon requested prepayment due to high costs, the WCAB determined that the defendant's utilization review approval for the treatment did not constitute an agreement to advance payment. Therefore, the WCAB concluded there was no unreasonable delay or refusal of treatment, negating the basis for a Labor Code section 5814 penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5814unreasonable delaydental careoral surgeryutilization reviewpre-authorizationpayment in advancefee schedule
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,414 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