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

Claim of Turdo v. Dellicato Vineyards

The case addresses whether the New York State Insurance Department Liquidation Bureau is required to make a mandatory deposit into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board had ruled that the deposit was mandatory, reversing its previous stance. However, the appellate court found that the plain language of Workers' Compensation Law § 27 does not mandate such deposits for the Liquidation Bureau, as it is not a 'stock corporation or mutual association'. While the Board possesses discretionary power to require deposits from 'insurance carriers', the court noted that the Board's decision was solely based on the mandatory provision. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Board to consider if a discretionary deposit would be appropriate.

Workers' Compensation Law § 27Aggregate Trust FundLiquidation BureauDeath BenefitsMandatory DepositDiscretionary DepositInsurance CarrierStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRemand
References
10
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. ADJ7550263
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

JOSE L. MORALES vs. KINGS COUNTY WASTE & RECYCLING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) addressed three petitions for reconsideration regarding dismissed lien claims. Comprehensive Interpreting's petition was dismissed as untimely filed. Prime Med's petition was denied on the merits, as their clients failed to pay the required lien activation fee, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 4903.06. Bakersfield Radiology's petition was granted, rescinding the dismissal order and remanding the case for further proceedings due to a defective dismissal order that improperly combined fee non-payment with failure to appear, and a lack of proper notice requirements for the latter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Activation FeeLabor Code section 4903.06Petition for ReconsiderationDismissal of LienDue ProcessUntimely FilingMandatory LanguageDefective OrderNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. ADJ11397630, ADJ11397631
Regular
Nov 07, 2019

MARIO MIRANDA vs. AKITA BONSAI NURSERY, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendants. The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed on September 9, 2019, beyond the jurisdictional deadline of September 6, 2019. Additionally, the petition lacked proof of service on adverse parties, which is a mandatory requirement. Failure to meet either of these procedural requirements warrants dismissal.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingproof of serviceadverse partiesjurisdictionalAppeals BoardWCJLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulationsdismissal
References
4
Case No. SAC 0339788
Regular
Jul 18, 2008

SHERYL CROWE vs. BEL AIR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sheryl Crowe's petition for reconsideration because it lacked any factual or legal support, failing to reference the record or applicable law as required. Additionally, the applicant did not provide proof of service of the petition on the defendant, which is a mandatory ground for dismissal. Therefore, the Board denied the petition based on its skeletal nature and the failure to meet procedural requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated Findings and AwardCumulative Industrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilitySkeletal PetitionProof of ServiceRule 10846Rule 10850
References
0
Case No. ADJ7324743
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

DIANA GARCIA vs. USA STAFFING INC., INTERCARE

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claim. The lien claimant, Dr. Ashden, failed to pay the required lien activation fee before the commencement of the lien conference. The WCAB found this dismissal mandatory under statute and precedent, and ignorance of the law was not a valid excuse. Therefore, the lien was dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory fee requirement.

Lien activation feePetition for ReconsiderationFigueroa en bancCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10848Lien claimantOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4903.06Lien conferenceCompromise and Release
References
2
Case No. ADJ6893236, ADJ6897165
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

ANTONIO DAVILA vs. ALUMISTAR INC./PACIFIC COAST, REDWOOD FIRE CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it lacked a proof of service, a mandatory filing requirement. Although the lien claimant argued an order was improperly served by the defendant, the Board found no prejudice as the petition was timely filed. The Board would have also denied the petition on its merits due to insufficient evidence of a required lien activation fee payment for Brent Pratley Downey. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceWCAB Rule 10850Lien ClaimantFinal OrderRule 10500(b)Rule 10500(a)Substantial PrejudiceElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien Activation Fee
References
7
Case No. ADJ3950168
Regular
Jun 14, 2013

MARVIN McCLENDON vs. INGLESIDE HOSPITAL, ZURICH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claim. The lien claimant, Comprehensive Therapeutics, failed to timely pay the required lien activation fee before a scheduled lien conference. Despite the claimant's assertion of unfamiliarity with the fee process, the Board upheld the dismissal based on the mandatory requirements of Labor Code §4903.06 (a) (4). The decision aligns with established precedent regarding timely payment of activation fees.

Lien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimFailure to PayComprehensive TherapeuticsLabor Code §4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDeclarations of Readiness to ProceedLien Conference
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,642 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