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
Jan 24, 2013

Conn v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (In re Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

This case involves Vittoria Conn, a former employee of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, who initiated a putative class action adversary proceeding. She alleged violations of the federal, New York, and California WARN Acts due to mass layoffs without proper advance notice. Dewey & LeBoeuf, the Debtor, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that these claims should be processed through the claims allowance system and that the 'liquidating fiduciary principle' exempted them from WARN Act obligations. The Court denied the Debtor's motion to dismiss, concluding that WARN Act claims, which seek equitable relief, are appropriately brought in an adversary proceeding. The Court postponed decisions on class certification and the administrative or priority status of the claims, noting these issues are to be resolved in the main bankruptcy case.

WARN ActNY WARN ActCAL WARN ActClass ActionAdversary ProceedingBankruptcyMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefLiquidating Fiduciary PrincipleEmployee Layoffs
References
51
Case No. ADJ591293 (GRO 0031424) ADJ3541062 (GRO 0031102)
Regular
Oct 16, 2014

GENE FREITAS vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an applicant's appeal challenging his permanent disability rating. The applicant argued his vocational expert demonstrated 100% disability, seeking to rebut the standard 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the initial findings, holding the applicant failed to prove his industrial injury was the sole cause of his inability to participate in rehabilitation. The WCAB emphasized that factors like lack of education or general aptitude, rather than solely the industrial injury, must be demonstrably absent for a successful rebuttal under *LeBoeuf* principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGene FreitasThe Kroger CompanyRalphs Grocery CompanySEDGWICK CMSOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleVocational ExpertOgilvie
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Lithuanian Workers' Literature Society

The Lithuanian Workers’ Literature Society appealed a Kings Special Term order denying its motion to amend its certificate of incorporation. The proposed amendment sought to broaden membership qualifications from adhering to the Socialist Party to not opposing "Marxian principles". The court scrutinized whether "Marxian principles" endorse the overthrow of government by force, which is criminal under state Penal Law. Citing Karl Marx's historical support for forceful revolutions (e.g., Paris Commune), the court concluded that these principles were broad enough to justify illegal propaganda. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed amendment would allow retention of members advocating "direct action" by force, contrary to the Socialist Party's recently amended platform promoting constitutional methods. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the amendment, refusing to sanction an organization whose principles could potentially endorse unlawful means.

Corporate AmendmentSocialismMarxian PrinciplesFreedom of AssociationPolitical PropagandaConstitutional LawPenal LawAppellate ReviewMembership Corporations LawDirect Action
References
6
Case No. ADJ800932 (OAK 0299866) ADJ2725270 (OAK 0299867) ADJ635812 (OAK 0299868) ADJ4541817 (OAK 0308810)
Regular
Feb 16, 2010

JOAN STEPP vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found the prior decision to be insufficient regarding apportionment of disability among multiple injuries as required by *Benson*. Additionally, the Board questioned the vocational expert's analysis for a finding of total permanent disability, as it did not adequately address retraining feasibility per *LeBoeuf*. The matter is remanded for the Agreed Medical Evaluator to provide clarified apportionment opinions and for a new decision consistent with *Benson* and *LeBoeuf*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuriesCumulative TraumaPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorBensonLeBoeufVocational Expert
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Findley v. Falise

This 'AMENDED MEMORANDUM, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT' addresses an unresolved issue from a class action settlement against the Manville Trust, concerning the allocation of payment responsibility under Maryland law. Following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the New York district and bankruptcy courts were mandated to predict how the Maryland Court of Appeals would apply set-off principles to this unique settlement. The courts considered arguments from various parties, including proposals for treating the Manville Trust, which is solvent but unable to fully meet its liabilities. Ultimately, the decision was to interpret Maryland law as excluding the Manville Trust from pro rata share calculations for other settling defendants, while crediting amounts settled by the Trust to non-settling joint tortfeasors. This ruling, detailed in Part V.A of the Order, aims to equitably balance the interests of all parties while adhering to Maryland law principles given the distinct circumstances of the Trust.

Asbestos LitigationClass Action SettlementManville TrustMaryland LawSet-off PrinciplesJoint TortfeasorsFederal Court JurisdictionAbstention DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentTort Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. United States

This case involves a facial constitutional challenge brought by New York City against two federal statutory provisions: Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. These federal laws preempt a New York City ordinance that restricts City officials from sharing information about aliens' immigration status with federal authorities. The plaintiffs argued that the federal provisions violated the Tenth Amendment, the Guarantee Clause, and principles of federalism by commandeering the City's policymaking apparatus and interfering with core governmental functions. The court, presided over by District Judge Koeltl, granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the action, holding that the federal statutes merely prevented local interference with voluntary information exchange and did not unconstitutionally compel state action or violate the principles invoked by the plaintiffs.

FederalismTenth AmendmentGuarantee ClausePreemptionImmigration StatusState SovereigntyLocal GovernmentInformation SharingConstitutional LawStatutory Challenge
References
27
Case No. ADJ7232076
Significant
Nov 04, 2011

TSEGAY MESSELE vs. PITCO FOODS, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board amends its prior decision of September 26, 2011, clarifying that the principles regarding the timeline for selecting medical evaluators (AME/QME) will apply prospectively from that date to prevent disruption in ongoing cases.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn BancReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 4062.2(b)Prospective ApplicationStatutory InterpretationMedical UnitPanel Request
References
9
Case No. ADJ4843767 (MF)
Regular
May 18, 2017

FELIX AGUILAR vs. WAREHOUSE DISCOUNT CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Felix Aguilar's petition for reconsideration. The petition failed to meet statutory and regulatory requirements by being skeletal, lacking specific references to the record and legal principles, and not detailing how evidence supported his claims. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition insufficient and dismissed it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportLabor Code § 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10846Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10852skeletal petitionmaterial evidencespecific references
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of D'Apice v. Line

The court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. The board's decision was deemed interlocutory as it failed to resolve all substantive issues or any threshold legal matters. Consequently, the decision was not considered appealable at this stage of the proceeding, consistent with established legal principles. The dismissal was ordered without the imposition of costs to either party.

interlocutory decisionappeal dismissalappellate procedurejurisdictionprocedural lawnon-final ordercourt procedurelegal precedentmotion practiceworkers' compensation board
References
1
Case No. ADJ12619223
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

FELIX RODRIGUEZ vs. SITEWORKS LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration. The Board failed to act on the petition within the statutory 60-day limit, but tolled this period due to a misplaced file, citing due process principles. However, the Applicant subsequently withdrew the Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Board dismissed the withdrawn Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Administrative Law JudgeDue ProcessTollingMisplaced FileShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Statutory Time LimitsWithdrawn PetitionDismissal Order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 358 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