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. ADJ695866
Regular
Jun 09, 2010

MARCIA RAVIZZA vs. ALBERTSON'S

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Marcia Ravizza against Albertson's. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. The WCAB has denied Ravizza's petition for reconsideration, adopting and incorporating the reasons provided in the judge's report. Therefore, the WCAB's decision stands.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMARCIA RAVIZZAALBERTSON'SADJ695866OAK District OfficeRECONSIDERATION DENIEDWCJ reportPetition for Reconsiderationadministrative law judgerecord review
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05820 [209 AD3d 554]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2022

Matter of Patrice H.W. (Marcia M.)

This case concerns an appeal regarding the termination of parental rights of Marcia M. to her four children: Patrice H.W., Natalie H.W., Anthony S.W., and Amya S.W. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's findings of permanent neglect against Marcia M. concerning Patrice and violations of suspended judgments for the other three children. The court found that Marcia M. failed to plan for Patrice's future by not acknowledging problems leading to foster care placement and failed to comply with terms of suspended judgments for the other children. The appeal also dismissed challenges to the dispositional order as it was entered upon default, and rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests.

Parental rights terminationpermanent neglectsuspended judgment violationFamily Court appealAppellate Divisionchild welfarefoster caredefault judgmentineffective assistance of counseladoption
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Quinones-Rivera

Marcia Quinones-Rivera appealed from an order of protection and an order of disposition issued by the Family Court, Queens County. The order of protection directed her to stay away from the petitioner, while the order of disposition found her in contempt of that order and placed her on probation. The appellate court affirmed the order of protection, concluding that the Family Court's determination of a family offense was supported by a fair preponderance of credible evidence. However, the court reversed the order of disposition, dismissing the supplemental petition, due to insufficient proof that Quinones-Rivera was aware of the content of the order of protection prior to the alleged violation.

Family LawOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationKnowledge RequirementDue ProcessFamily Court ActQueens CountyProbation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 1994

Raponi v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Petitioner Eugene D. Raponi, a quadriplegic due to a work-related motor vehicle accident, along with his wife Marcia Raponi, settled a personal injury action for $100,000. The respondents, who provided workers' compensation benefits, consented to the settlement but maintained their lien. Petitioners sought to apportion the settlement proceeds, with Marcia Raponi seeking the majority due to her substantial uncompensated care for her husband. The Supreme Court granted the apportionment, finding her services exceeded the settlement value and would have otherwise required significant workers' compensation payments. This decision was affirmed on appeal, stating it prevented a double recovery while acknowledging the wife's significant uncompensated loss.

Settlement ApportionmentLoss of ConsortiumCatastrophic InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienPersonal Injury SettlementSpousal CareEquitable ApportionmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDouble Recovery Prevention
References
4
Case No. ADJ7091847
Regular
Jul 29, 2019

MARCIA COLFER vs. CBC PROFESSIONAL PHARMACY; EMPLOYERS' COMP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, finding that the reliance on a 2014 medical evaluation for permanent disability was insufficient. The applicant's primary treating physician reported additional permanent disability due to complications from prior surgery, and the panel qualified medical evaluator indicated a need for reevaluation. The Board determined the record required further development due to insufficient current medical evidence regarding the applicant's disability level. Therefore, the prior award was rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianPermanent DisabilityCompensable ConsequenceSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentFurther Development of RecordMedical EvidenceSubstantial Medical EvidenceFindings and Award
References
3
Case No. ADJ8403518, ADJ8928431
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

Marcia Ortiz vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, INTERCARE

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings for a right elbow injury and its 24% permanent disability award. However, for a left foot/ankle injury, the Board rescinded the finding of industrial sleep disorder due to lack of substantial medical evidence. The Board also amended the permanent disability rating for the left ankle injury, ultimately awarding 12% permanent disability based on the primary treating physician's opinion. This decision corrected Dr. Chen's flawed application of impairment rating guidelines and excluded the sleep disorder from compensable injury.

PQMEDr. Chensleep impairmentindustrial injurypermanent disabilityADJ8403518ADJ8928431WCJDr. MartinovskyAMA Guides
References
7
Case No. ADJ579864 (SAC 0353253)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Marcia Pratt vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON

This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees awarded in a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of a $15,000 fee award, arguing it was insufficient given the case's complexity and the settlement's value. The Board granted reconsideration, determining that the Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) funding should be excluded from the fee calculation. Ultimately, the attorney was awarded $21,752, representing 15% of the "new money" received by the applicant after excluding MSA costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Fee Finding and OrderCompromise and Release Agreementattorney's feelien claimantstipulated awardpermanent disabilitylife pensionMediCare Set-aside AccountMSA
References
1
Case No. ADJ8033181
Regular
Jun 04, 2013

MARCIA MATTHEWS vs. NEIMAN MARCUS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior order to select an Agreed Medical Evaluator. The Board found that the applicant's physician, Dr. Chambi, provided substantial evidence supporting the need for spinal surgery. Conversely, the defense's second opinion physician, Dr. Ma, failed to adequately explain his non-surgical recommendation and his initial report was untimely due to the defense's failure to provide complete medical records. Therefore, the Board ordered the defendant to provide the requested spinal surgery.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorRegular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5701Spinal SurgeryNeurosurgical ConsultationUtilization Review DenialSecond Opinion EvaluatorFormer Labor Code Section 4062(b)Expedited Hearing
References
1
Case No. ADJ9903173
Regular
Nov 10, 2016

MARCIA MALINE vs. VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN AND ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn a prior order denying her claim based on the statute of limitations. The Board found that the applicant's proffered new evidence was improperly submitted without an offer of proof, failing to meet the requirements of Labor Code section 5903(d). Consequently, the applicant's petition was denied for the reasons stated in the prior order and for this procedural deficiency.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLabor Code 5405Labor Code 5412Credibility DeterminationsWCJFindings and OrderCumulative Trauma InjuryNewly Discovered Evidence
References
0
Case No. ANA 0390307
Regular
Jul 24, 2007

MARCIA HOELKER vs. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board reconsidered the WCJ's award to a lien claimant for surgical facility charges. The Board found the lien claimant's initial billing of $12,225 was not fully reasonable. Consequently, the Board modified the award to $7,440, less amounts already paid by the defendant, and denied penalty and interest.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFacility FeesReasonableness of ChargesKunz v. Patterson Floor CoveringsOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleBurden of ProofComparative StudyUsual Fee
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 17 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