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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. Barney's Clothing Store

A claimant appealed an award for disability due to a myocardial infarction. The board found that an argument with his supervisor about pay led to severe chest pain, and medical evidence supported that excitement from the argument, superimposed on a prior cardiac condition, caused the infarction. The claimant testified to a 20-minute argument with his assistant manager about overtime pay, during which he threatened to go home and experienced chest pains. The court, however, found no legally sufficient basis for the board's finding of an accident, stating the situation did not involve emotional tension greater than typical workplace irritations and was not exceptional enough to meet established legal tests for accident. Consequently, the decision and award were reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

myocardial infarctionworkplace argumentemotional stressworkers' compensationcardiac pathologydisability awardlegal precedentmedical evidenceappealboard finding
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. SJO 0245864, SJO 0245865, SJO 0245866
Regular
Jul 14, 2008

ANITA REXINGER vs. ELECTROLUX CORPORATION, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant waived the jurisdictional argument regarding the Rehabilitation Unit's determination by not raising it at trial. The applicant's arguments regarding the interpretation of *Gamble* were also rejected, though the Board noted a pending Supreme Court review in a similar case that may impact future proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectrolux CorporationWausau Insurance CompaniesVocational Rehabilitation Temporary Disability (VRTD)concurrent employmentDetermination of the Rehabilitation UnitLabor Code section 5804Gamble v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Medrano v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.writ of review
References
2
Case No. ADJ6535842
Regular
May 04, 2012

HENRY PEREIRA vs. NND DESIGNS, INC., ENDURANCE INSURANCE CO.

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an award disallowing their liens and imposing sanctions. Their petition was dismissed by the Appeals Board as untimely filed and lacking proof of service. The Board also noted that the underlying award found applicant did not sustain an industrial injury, making the lien claimants' arguments regarding burden of proof and sanctions meritless. The dismissal prioritized procedural defects over the substantive arguments raised.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsJoint Amended Findings and AwardBurden of ProofIndustrial InjurySanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Compromise and ReleaseTimeliness
References
2
Case No. 47 NY2d 922
Regular Panel Decision

Lombardi v. Park Dodge, Inc.

This legal action involved a motion to dismiss an appeal, which was brought forth on the grounds that the appeal was untimely. The court, after reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, ultimately decided to deny the motion to dismiss. The decision was rendered without the imposition of costs on either party, suggesting that the court found the reasons for dismissal, specifically the untimeliness argument, to be insufficient. The reference to 'Matter of Gonzalez [Ross], 47 NY2d 922' indicates this case is a cited precedent or a similar case being referenced.

Motion to DismissAppealUntimely AppealDenial of MotionProcedural LawNew York Court of Appeals
References
2
Case No. ADJ1628806 (LBO 0395075)
Regular
Jul 08, 2014

MARIA MOYA vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was skeletal and failed to state any legal grounds or specific references to the record. The petition challenged sanctions imposed by the WCJ, including attorney's fees, but did not meet the procedural requirements for reconsideration. The WCAB emphasized that such petitions must detail specific legal arguments and evidentiary support. Consequently, the lien claimant's arguments regarding untimely Bill of Particulars and unreasonable attorney's fees were not considered on their merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantSanctionsCompromise and ReleaseSkeletal PetitionBill of ParticularsAttorney's FeesLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
0
Case No. GRO 33581
Regular
Nov 07, 2007

NORMA SALGADO vs. SEA PINES GOLF RESORT, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award, adding a finding that the applicant is entitled to reimbursement for vocational rehabilitation expert costs. While the Board affirmed the $10\%$ permanent disability rating, it found merit in the applicant's argument regarding expert costs, citing Labor Code $\S 5811$. The applicant's challenges to the permanent disability rating and the legality of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities were otherwise rejected due to insufficient argument and reliance on an unpublished decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardvocational rehabilitation expertAlbert RivasM.A.reimbursement for coststemporary disabilitypermanent disability2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesCosta v. Hardy DiagnosticLabor Code § 5811
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Williams

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from the claimant's failure to comply with his employer's president's directive to be quiet during an argument about his behavior toward co-workers, leading to his termination. The Board found substantial evidence supported the disqualification, noting prior warnings. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, dismissing the claimant's argument regarding his employer's ulterior motives as a credibility issue appropriately resolved by the Board.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductInsubordinationTermination of EmploymentAppellate ReviewCredibility IssueEmployer DirectiveDisqualificationUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudicial Affirmation
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,139 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