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. RDG 0115958
Significant
Nov 16, 2004

Brice Sandhagen, Applicant vs. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that the utilization review time deadlines are mandatory; if a defendant fails to meet these deadlines, any utilization review report is inadmissible, and the defendant must use the AME/QME procedure as the objecting party.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Time DeadlinesAdmissibility of EvidenceMedical Treatment RecommendationACOEM GuidelinesAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorSection 4062
References
23
Case No. ADJ10002769
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

JOHN WALTERS vs. LONG BEACH TRANSIT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed John Walters' Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was submitted on January 6, 2020, exceeding the 25-day deadline after the Administrative Law Judge's December 9, 2019 decision. Filing with the Board, not just mailing, within the jurisdictional deadline is mandatory. Therefore, the Board lacked authority to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsWCAB RuleProof of ServiceMailing vs. Filing
References
4
Case No. ADJ4544057 (RIV 0067196)
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

KATHY SCARLETT vs. EMBER CARE/PLEASANT CARE CORPORATION, AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kathy Scarlett's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. Scarlett's petition was untimely, filed over a month after the statutory deadline following the issuance of the Findings and Award. Despite the severe industrial injury and sympathetic circumstances, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits due to the mandatory nature of the filing deadline. The WCAB stressed that they have no authority to extend the filing period, even for compelling cases.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNew EvidenceLabor Code section 5903TimelinessJurisdictionalWCJ
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meinhardt v. Flynn

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, initiated an action seeking a permanent mandatory injunction and damages to be reinstated to membership in a trades union, alleging improper exclusion or expulsion. The case involved an order framing issues of fact for a jury trial, which was subsequently modified by the court. Specific items were struck from the original order, and two new items were inserted to cover factual issues arising from denials in the complaint. The modified order was affirmed without costs, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to frame additional questions. The Special Term’s discretion in granting the order under section 430 of the Civil Practice Act was upheld by the court.

Mandatory InjunctionDamagesTrades Union MembershipImproper ExclusionExpulsionJury Trial IssuesOrder ModificationCivil Practice ActAppellate ReviewProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. Adv. Proc. No. 16-01074 (SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Core Litigation Trust ex rel. Kravitz v. Apollo Global Management, LLC (In re AOG Entertainment, Inc.)

The CORE Litigation Trust, as assignee of Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, initiated a proceeding in California State Court against a group of defendants. The Trust alleged inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contracts. The action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Trust moved for mandatory abstention and remand to the California State Court. The Court granted the motion, finding it had non-core, 'related to' jurisdiction and that the action could be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Mandatory abstentionRemandBankruptcy jurisdictionNon-core jurisdictionRelated to jurisdictionTimely adjudicationState law claimsFederalismComityChoice of law
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicalo v. New York City Housing & Development Administration

Plaintiffs, sponsors of the Harbour Village limited-profit cooperative housing project in Brooklyn, sought a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction to compel New York City defendants to take actions, including issuing a condemnation certificate, to facilitate the project. The project, approved by the Board of Estimate in 1971, stalled due to the Mayor's failure to issue the certificate, which was deemed a discretionary act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Mayor's action was discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore could not be compelled by the court. The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as no enforceable contract existed given the Mayor's unexercised discretion and the court's lack of power to compel legislative or executive action.

Declaratory JudgmentMandatory InjunctionSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentDiscretionary ActMinisterial ActCondemnation ProceedingsPrivate Housing Finance LawNew York City CharterAdministrative Code
References
19
Case No. RDG 0115958
En Banc
Nov 16, 2004

Brice Sandhagen vs. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that utilization review time deadlines under Labor Code section 4610(g)(1) are mandatory. A defendant's failure to comply precludes the use of the utilization review process, renders the resulting report inadmissible, and requires the defendant, as the objecting party, to follow the dispute resolution procedures of section 4062(a).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610(g)(1)Mandatory DeadlinesAdmissibility of EvidenceACOEM GuidelinesTreating PhysicianMedical Treatment RecommendationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)
References
23
Case No. MON 0342308; MON 0288941 MON 0288940
Regular
Aug 27, 2007

ENRIQUE JAIME HIGUEROS vs. FJ WARD MAINTENANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, WILLIAMBERG INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and vacated an arbitrator's decision because the arbitrator failed to issue a decision within the mandatory 30-day period required by Labor Code § 5722. The Board found no agreement by the parties to extend this deadline and no valid reason to toll the time. Consequently, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

CIGALegion Insurance CompanyWilliamsberg InsuranceArbritrator's DecisionPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5722Submission OrderForfeiture of Arbitrator's FeeAOE/COECompromise and Release
References
2
Case No. ADJ7213733
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

TELMA BRUMELL vs. ALMITY INTERNATIONAL HOME CARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Telma Brumell's Petition for Reconsideration. The petition was untimely, filed four days after the deadline. Furthermore, it lacked proof of service on adverse parties, a mandatory procedural requirement. Additionally, the petition was deemed "skeletal" as it failed to specifically detail the grounds for reconsideration or cite relevant evidence and legal principles.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingProof of ServiceLabor CodeAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation JudgeJurisdictionalSkeletal PetitionAdverse PartiesVerified Pleadings
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,216 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