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. 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. 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The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings.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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought a temporary injunction against LOCAL UNION NO. 3 I.B.E.W., alleging unfair labor practices related to secondary boycotts. The charges stemmed from picketing by union members at various New York City apartment buildings, where New Power Wire & Electric Corporation and P & L Services, Inc. had electrical rewiring contracts. The union picketed, claiming New Power violated its agreement by employing non-union electricians. The Board contended this picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. However, the court, applying the Moore Dry Dock Company principles, found no sufficient evidence that the union induced neutral employees or coerced building owners. The court concluded the picketing was informational and confined to the primary dispute's situs, thus not violating the Act. Consequently, the Board's application for a preliminary injunction was denied.

National Labor Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementMoore Dry Dock TestLandrum-Griffin ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
6
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. 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. 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. 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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that his injury claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board agreed that the applicant's claims were barred under Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10) and 3208.3(e) as they were filed after notice of termination and no exceptions applied. The Board also determined that the defendant's denial letter encompassed both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b).

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJRalphs Grocery Companyindustrial injurypsycheheadright shoulderneck
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 10,232 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