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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ1537159 (POM 0266229) ADJ3643803 (POM 0295243)
Regular
Oct 20, 2017

PETRA PAZOS vs. XEROX CORPORATION, INC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

Defendant Continental Casualty Company's petition for reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) award requiring contribution to ACE/USA for medical expenses was denied. The WCAB found the petition lacked the required verification and was not properly served on the arbitrator. Even if the petition had merit, it would have been dismissed due to the procedural defect of lack of verification. The WCAB also admonished the defendant for improperly attaching evidence to their filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardContributionMedical ExpensesLabor Code Section 5500.5ReimbursementArbitrator's Fee ForfeitureVerificationLabor Code Section 5902
References
1
Case No. ADJ9013680 ADJ6455298
Regular
Mar 10, 2017

EDWARD ORTA vs. HEIN HETTINGA, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The primary reasons for dismissal were that the petition was unverified, as required by Labor Code section 5902, and lacked proof of service on adverse parties. Despite notice of the verification defect from the WCJ's report, the applicant failed to cure it within a reasonable time. The WCAB also denied a supplemental handwritten letter from the applicant due to lack of verification and service.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedProof of ServiceDismissalUnverifiedLabor Code Section 5902Adverse PartiesSupplemental PleadingAppeals Board Rule 10848Cures the Defect
References
1
Case No. ADJ3011154 (SAC 0309784) ADJ3631113 (SAC 0309785)
Regular
Aug 28, 2014

CHRISTOPHER TORRES vs. CONTRA COSTA SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a dismissal of an applicant's Independent Medical Review (IMR) appeal, which was initially dismissed for lack of verification. While the applicant's IMR appeal did not meet the statutory requirement for verification under Labor Code section 4610.6(h), the WCAB recognized the evolving nature of this requirement and the public policy favoring disposition on the merits. The case was returned to the trial level, allowing the applicant twenty days to cure the verification defect, after which the WCJ will address the substance of the appeal or dismiss it if the defect remains uncorrected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewVerified AppealLabor Code Section 4610.6(h)Petition for ReconsiderationRule 10450(e)Declaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJSignificant Panel Decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MON 0114910
Regular
Oct 02, 2007

TEDDIE GRIFFIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimants' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. The Board noted that even after the WCJ pointed out the defect, the lien claimants failed to cure the lack of verification. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory verification requirement.

LachesLabor Code section 4903.5PrejudiceLien claimantsCalifornia Psychiatric CenterNeuro-Electro DiagnosticPetition for ReconsiderationVerificationLabor Code section 5902Dismissal
References
2
Case No. BAK 0150807
Regular
Feb 05, 2008

JODI SMITH vs. COUNTY OF KERN, PROBATION DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jodi Smith's Petition for Reconsideration because it lacked the mandatory verification required by Labor Code section 5902. Applicant sought reconsideration of a finding that her back injury was not a compensable consequence of her admitted right lower extremity industrial injury. Even without the verification defect, the Board would have denied the petition based on the judge's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injuryright lower extremityprobation officercompensable consequenceincomplete discoverylack of verificationLabor Code section 5902
References
2
Case No. ADJ2862412 (LBO 0337338)
Regular
Jun 08, 2009

MICHAEL BRAJEVICH vs. TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal because it was unverified. The defendant sought to rescind a prior order continuing the matter to trial, arguing a previous award was clear and the lien claimant should have sought reconsideration. WCAB Rule 10843(b) mandates verification for petitions for removal and answers thereto. Because the petition lacked verification, it was summarily dismissed.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843(b)Verified PleadingsRescind OrderOrder of ContinuationLien ClaimantIrreparable HarmVerified PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ1274234
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

YVONNE SAA vs. BODIES IN MOTION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Yvonne Saa's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Notice of this defect was given, and Saa failed to cure it by filing a verification or providing a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. The Board noted that even if not dismissed for lack of verification, the petition would have been denied on its merits according to the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerificationLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionUnverified petitionDismissal
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,472 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