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
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. 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
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. 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. 06-cv-05285
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2014

Muszkatel v. 90 Church Street Ltd. Partnership

Jerzy Muszkatel, an asbestos abatement worker, sued multiple defendants (owners, environmental consultants, contractors, subcontractors) for common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), alleging injuries from working in buildings near the World Trade Center post-9/11 due to inadequate safety equipment and procedures for "alkaline-based" dust. The District Court, presided by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court found triable issues of fact regarding supervisory control and premises liability under Labor Law 200 for most defendants across multiple sites (2 World Financial Center, 90 Church Street, 140 West Street). It also sustained Section 241(6) claims for these sites concerning specific Industrial Code violations (23-1.5(c)(3), 23-1.7(h), 1.8(c)(4), 23-1.8(b)(l)), but dismissed claims for work at 101 Barclay Street and 7 Dey Street due to lack of "construction, excavation or demolition" activity, and dismissed all claims against Indoor Environmental Technologies, Inc.

asbestos abatementWorld Trade Center9/11 clean-upsummary judgmentNew York Labor Lawnegligenceindustrial code violationsoccupational hazardspersonal protective equipmentsite safety
References
29
Case No. ADJ9074552; ADJ9074553
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

VINCENT HERNANDEZ vs. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal regarding the selection of an Occupational Medicine QME panel. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that the defendant's request for an Occupational Medicine QME panel complied with Labor Code Section 4062.2. The report reasoned that Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.1(b)'s requirement for supporting documentation for specialty changes does not invalidate a request if not provided. Additionally, the Board found the applicant's arguments regarding an unfair advantage and the WCJ's interpretation of Section 31.1 to be misplaced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJQME panelOccupational MedicineTitle 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.1Labor Code Section 4062.2Treating PhysicianPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationMedical Unit
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,424 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