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. FRE 0218098 FRE 0200339
Regular
Aug 14, 2008

JOSE ACOSTA, ESMERALDA ABRIOL vs. PETERSON FAMILY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY

In **Acosta v. Peterson Family**, the Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal filed by both the defendants and the lien claimant. This action concerns a consolidated lien proceeding with over 800 dates of service valued at over $7 million, stemming from an order compelling the lien claimant to produce specific medical documentation. In **Jacobson v. Sonoma Developmental Department**, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings at the trial level, indicating the prior decision was not final.

WCABLien ConsolidationItemized BillsOperative NotesOwnership InterestFictitious Name PermitsReconsiderationRemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Cortes

This case involves an appeal concerning the consolidation of a personal injury lawsuit with an arbitration proceeding. The underlying incident was a 1977 automobile accident where Belinda Patterson, an infant, was injured by Engracio Cortes, a co-employee at Queens General Hospital. Patterson and her assignee sought no-fault benefits from Cortes' insurer, State Farm, but were denied due to alleged workers' compensation eligibility, leading to arbitration. Simultaneously, Patterson sued Cortes for personal injuries. The Supreme Court granted a motion to consolidate the action and arbitration, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court found no legal basis for consolidating an action with an arbitration and clarified that an arbitration award would not bind Cortes in the personal injury action since he was not a party to the arbitration.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationArbitrationConsolidationCo-employee DefenseRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewInsurance Claim
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. ADJ8861723
Regular
Aug 27, 2018

ARACELI FLORES vs. VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS/SANTA ISABEL ENTERPRISES, CLAREDON INSURANCE

Lien claimant Mesa Pharmacy sought removal of a WCJ's order that deferred the critical issue of whether its lien was stayed under Labor Code § 4615. Mesa argued this denial of due process and prejudicially delayed adjudication of its lien. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the matter for proceedings consistent with a prior consolidation order. This consolidation addressed common issues regarding Mesa Pharmacy's liens and potential stays under § 4615 due to criminal proceedings against related parties.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4615Stayed LienCriminally Charged ProviderDue ProcessConsolidated CasesMaster FileWCJOrder of Consolidation
References
1
Case No. ADJ7562912
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

PEDRO LOPEZ vs. The Peninsula Beverly Hills (The Belvedere Hotel), Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that sanctioned the lien claimant $750 for filing a frivolous Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. The Board found the lien claimant acted in violation of regulations but is deferring a final decision pending a hearing on a motion to consolidate numerous similar cases. This consolidation motion, if denied, will allow the current case to proceed with potential sanctions, and the Board noted potential future disciplinary actions for lien representatives.

Declaration of ReadinessDORfrivoloussanctionlien claimantPetition for Reconsiderationrescindedtrial levelconsolidationlien representative
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Atkinson v. City of New York

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a petitioner against the City of New York. The petitioner sought to prevent the City from imposing a Workers’ Compensation lien on an award received through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition and prohibited the lien. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court reiterating that Workers’ Compensation liens are applicable only against recoveries from third-party tortfeasors responsible for injuries, as per Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. The court determined that the vaccine injury award did not constitute such a recovery, thus precluding the lien. The case Matter of Ryan v General Elec. Co. was distinguished as involving an award against a tortfeasor under the Military Claims Act.

Workers' Compensation LienNational Vaccine Injury Compensation ProgramCPLR Article 78Third-Party TortfeasorAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLien ProhibitionVaccine Injury AwardMilitary Claims ActNew York Appellate Courts
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kesick v. Ulster County Self Insurance Plan

Paul Kesick, a police officer, was involved in two automobile accidents, leading to workers' compensation claims for knee injuries. Kesick and his wife settled a personal injury action against the drivers for $50,000 and $75,000 without the consent of the Ulster County Self Insurance Plan, their workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court granted their application for a nunc pro tunc order approving the settlement but denied the carrier's request for a workers' compensation lien against the settlement proceeds. The carrier appealed, arguing it was entitled to a lien for amounts exceeding $50,000, which are not considered first-party benefits. The appellate court agreed, modifying the order by granting the carrier a lien of $5,969.49 to be held in escrow, preventing an impermissible double recovery for the petitioners.

Workers' Compensation LawLienSettlementThird-Party ActionFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Insurance LawDouble RecoveryAutomobile AccidentAppellate CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. ADJ9286923
Regular
May 28, 2019

Oscar Abrego vs. Frontline Finish, Security National Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to Reshealth Medical Group's petition regarding its lien. The Board rescinded the prior finding that there was insufficient evidence of an assignment between Javlin Three and Reshealth for accounts receivable. This case, along with other matters involving Reshealth, has been consolidated under a master file for further proceedings to address complex issues concerning Reshealth's liens and potential stays under Labor Code section 4615. The lien is returned to the trial level for inclusion in these consolidated proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAssignmentAccounts ReceivableLabor Code Section 4615StayOrder of ConsolidationMaster File
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,850 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