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. ADJ8250476
Regular
Jan 26, 2015

ARISTEO LOPEZ vs. MASTER BRAND CABINETS, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant regarding a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this petition due to the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The Board requires more time to fully understand the record and issue a just decision. All future filings in this matter must be submitted in writing to the Office of the Commissioners, not to district offices or via e-filing.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationARISTEO LOPEZMASTER BRAND CABINETSSEDGWICK CMSlien claimantstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2006

Land Master Montg I, LLC v. Town of Montgomery

In this case, petitioners Land Master and Roswind Farmland Corp. challenged the Town of Montgomery's new Comprehensive Plan and Local Laws 4 and 5, arguing they constituted unlawful exclusionary zoning and violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court, presided over by Judge Joseph G. Owen, granted the petitioners' motion regarding these claims, declaring the local laws null and void. The decision highlighted the Town's failure to adequately consider local and regional affordable housing needs and to undertake a thorough environmental review. While some of the petitioners' other claims were dismissed, they were awarded attorneys' fees. The court ordered the reinstatement of petitioners' land use applications under the prior zoning laws.

Zoning LawExclusionary ZoningAffordable HousingState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Comprehensive PlanLocal LegislationLand Use PlanningMulti-Family HousingTraffic ImpactJudicial Review
References
19
Case No. 80 Civil 4699
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1982

Wallace v. INTERN. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, ETC.

Plaintiff Oscar L. Wallace sued the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots and its Ex. President Capt. Robert J. Lowen after his application for union membership was denied. He alleged wrongful denial of admission, termination of applicant status, denial of due process, equal protection violations, refusal to refer to job assignments, violation of his right to sue, conspiracy, and racial discrimination. The court dismissed most of his claims, including those based on alleged membership rights and civil rights violations, finding he had no vested right to membership and failed to show state action or a conspiracy. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fair representation, acknowledging the union's duty to an applicant regarding job referrals.

Union MembershipFair RepresentationDue ProcessCivil RightsFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor LawConspiracyRacial DiscriminationEmployment Rights
References
38
Case No. 10-CV-0347
Regular Panel Decision

Sentry Insurance v. Brand Management Inc.

Sentry Insurance initiated actions against Brand Management, Inc., Budget Services, Inc., and Hershel Weber for claims including breach of contract and alter ego liability, arising from workers' compensation insurance policies. Brand and Budget, controlled by Weber, allegedly breached the casualty agreement by failing to pay Sentry, leading to significant unpaid claims. The defendants engaged in recalcitrant discovery behavior, resulting in a preclusion order against their alter ego defense. The Court found Weber completely dominated Brand and Budget, using this domination to undercapitalize them and render them judgment-proof, thereby committing a wrong against Sentry. Consequently, the Court granted Sentry's motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract against Brand and Budget, and on alter ego liability against Weber, while denying the defendants' cross-motion.

Breach of ContractAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCorporate UndercapitalizationInter-company Fund TransfersDiscovery SanctionsCorporate FormalitiesInsurance Dispute
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sloth v. Constellation Brands, Inc.

Vicky Sloth sued her former employer, Constellation Brands, Inc., and several individual employees, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination based on gender, age, race, national origin, and disability under Title VII, ADEA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss most of Sloth's claims, including those under ADEA, ADA, § 1981, and Title VII claims for race, national origin, and color discrimination, as well as Human Rights Law claims against several individual employees. However, the court allowed Sloth's Title VII and New York Human Rights Law claims of hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment to proceed against Constellation Brands, Inc., and John Bognaski. Additionally, the court rejected the defendants' arguments that the state law claims were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel due to a prior Workers' Compensation Board decision.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoTitle VIIADEAADASection 1981New York State Human Rights LawEmployment Law
References
52
Case No. ADJ2818792 (MON 0312453) ADJ832261 (MON 0341441) ADJ4192657 (MON 0327492) ADJ229486 (MON 0333529) ADJ309456 (MON 0334315) ADJ2984620 (MON 0312452)
Regular
Jun 14, 2015

KAY BRAND vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kay Brand's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service by mail, with specific rules for extensions on weekends and holidays. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the Board within this timeframe, not merely mailed. As Brand's petition was filed on June 19, 2015, more than 25 days after the May 21, 2015 decision, it was dismissed as untimely.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissedjurisdictionalWCJservice by mailCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor Codeadministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ9714303
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

BRENT REYNOLDS vs. HOSTESS BRANDS, FORMERLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SELFINSURED SECURITY FUND VIA TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hostess Brands' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found that while Hostess Brands' communication regarding a non-refundable deposit for an Agreed Medical Evaluator's deposition was not in bad faith, it constituted an ex parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(f). The ALJ also found the Applicant's counsel violated the same section by communicating with the evaluator without consulting the defense. As both parties violated the statute, the ALJ denied competing petitions for costs and sanctions, a decision affirmed by the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeposition Fee AgreementNon-refundable DepositCross-examination FeesEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code section 4062.3Fee ScheduleMedical-legal Expenses
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04168 [219 AD3d 1003]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

Matter of Campos v. Performance Master, Inc.

Claimant Denis Campos, a construction worker, filed for workers' compensation benefits after falling from a ladder. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and put American Zurich Insurance Company on notice regarding a specific workers' compensation policy. American Zurich contested, arguing the policy was canceled or that other policies applied, but failed to provide evidence for the identified policy despite being directed to do so. The WCLJ determined the policy remained in effect, making American Zurich the liable carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, declining to consider new evidence submitted by American Zurich on administrative appeal, and subsequently denied their application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in refusing new evidence or denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy CancellationAdministrative ReviewEvidence SubmissionAppellate DivisionWCLJ DecisionBoard AffirmationReconsideration DenialAbuse of Discretion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brauch v. Interstate Brands Corp.

A former employee of Interstate Brands Corp. sued Interstate, his union (IAM), and its representative for $50,000 in lost pension benefits after his benefits were terminated under a new IAM pension plan. The termination occurred because Interstate ceased contributions less than four years after joining the plan. The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation by the union and its representative, and failure to inform by Interstate regarding the plan's termination provision and their intent to cease contributions. The court, however, found no legal duty for the employer to inform the employee about collective bargaining agreement terms. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's denial of Interstate's motion for summary judgment, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint against Interstate.

Pension Benefits TerminationEmployer LiabilityUnion LiabilityCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationDuty to InformSummary Judgment AppealWrongful Termination of BenefitsEmployee RightsLabor DisputeAppellate Reversal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2003

Master-Built Construction Co. v. Thorne

This case involves an appeal by Master-Built Construction Co., Inc. (the contractor), from an order that granted summary judgment to Oakleigh B. Thorne (the plaintiff) in the sum of $574,033.86. The dispute arises from a "cost-plus" construction agreement where the contractor allegedly over-billed for costs associated with subcontracted workers, independent labor, and its own employees, and improperly billed for owned scaffolding equipment. The Supreme Court found the agreement unambiguously limited the contractor's ability to pass along costs to only those actually incurred and precluded billing for owned equipment. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Thorne made a prima facie showing of over-billing and improper billing by the contractor.

Breach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentConstruction AgreementCost-Plus ContractContract InterpretationOver-billingAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyAffirmed Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 208 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