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. 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. 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. ADJ122717
Regular
Dec 13, 2012

JOE MARTINEZ vs. CDC-CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here is a summary of the case in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claim by the CCPOA Benefits Trust Fund for over $42,000 paid to applicant Joe Martinez for living expenses. The Board found no statutory authority under Labor Code sections 4903 or 4903.1 to allow reimbursement for living expenses paid by a self-insured employee welfare benefit plan. Specifically, Labor Code section 4903.1(a)(3) only permits such liens for group disability policies under specific conditions not met here. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision disallowing the lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimLabor Code section 4903(c)Living expensesSelf-insured employee welfare benefit planStatutory authorizationReimbursementPermanent disabilityTemporary disabilityGroup disability policy
References
8
Case No. ADJ7350560
Regular
May 21, 2013

ANDREA BARRERA vs. PET SMART, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing Expert Medical Management's lien. The lien, filed before January 1, 2013, was subject to a lien activation fee under Labor Code Section 4903.06(a). Expert Medical Management failed to pay this fee, despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of their lien claim. The Appeals Board adopted the judge's report, which found the lien claimant's arguments regarding Labor Code Section 4903(b) amendments and penalty payments irrelevant to the activation fee requirement.

Lien activation feePetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code §4903.06(a)Medical-legal expensesLabor Code §4903(b)Expert Medical ManagementWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDewayne MarshallStipulations with Request for Award
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2002

Fuga v. St. Moritz Holding, LLC

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order granting a laborer partial summary judgment against the owner and general contractor for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The laborer sought recovery for personal injuries sustained when a scaffold collapsed. The defendants contested summary judgment, citing the plaintiff's non-compliance with a discovery order to produce coworker addresses. However, the court ruled that the defendants had sufficient time to locate the coworkers and that the requested disclosure was futile. This futility was based on the defendants' own admissions regarding a malfunctioning scaffold part and the absence of a safety harness, rendering coworker testimony irrelevant to liability under section 240 (1). The court also emphasized that comparative negligence is not a valid defense for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation.

Scaffold CollapsePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawStatutory LiabilityDiscovery DisputeCoworker TestimonyFutility of DisclosureComparative NegligenceConstruction Accident
References
3
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. 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

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,014 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