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. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358(SAS), M 21-88, 04-Civ-2389, 04-Civ-5424, 04-Civ-3417, 04-Civ-4968
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) concerns groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE and its degradation product, TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment in several New York actions and one Orange County Water District action, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the contamination levels were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), thus not constituting an "injury-in-fact." The court analyzed whether the MCL defines the scope of a legally protected interest, distinguishing prior cases involving private well owners or those where remediation expenses were not directly linked to contamination. The court concluded that MCLs are regulatory standards for water providers, not a strict definition of what constitutes an injury for tort liability. It determined that contamination below the MCL can still cause a cognizable injury due to monitoring, testing, treatment costs, and issues like taste and odor. The court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remain regarding the extent of plaintiffs' alleged injuries from low-level MTBE contamination, making a summary judgment ruling premature.

Groundwater ContaminationMTBE LitigationTertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)Product LiabilityMulti-District Litigation (MDL)Article III StandingSummary JudgmentMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL)Environmental LawWater Quality Standards
References
60
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. ADJ8266893
Regular
May 21, 2013

ALI JIRDE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 6, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on March 29, 2013, more than 20 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was personally served on March 6, 2013. As the decision was personally served, the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 did not apply. The WCAB noted that timely filing is jurisdictional and therefore lacked the power to grant the untimely petition. However, defendants retain the option to file a Petition to Reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Petition to ReopenWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's Report and Recommendation
References
7
Case No. 2015-447 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., as assignee of Vorel Hopkins, initiated an action against GEICO General Insurance Company to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered on March 4 and 6, 2013, due to untimely submission, and other claims arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule for services billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814. The Civil Court denied the defendant's cross-motion. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court's order, finding that the defendant had presented sufficient proof of full payment for the CPT code services in line with the workers' compensation fee schedule and that the claims from March 4 and 6, 2013, were indeed untimely submitted. Consequently, the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding these specific claims was granted.

No-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleUntimely SubmissionAppellate ReviewCivil Court OrderInsurance Claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. ADJ711962 (SFO 0420092) ADJ2557776 (SFO 0390012)
Regular
Jul 06, 2015

EVELYN COTTON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and successive, as the underlying Supplemental Findings and Award from March 14, 2013, was final and beyond the Board's jurisdiction to amend. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal or disqualification of the judge, finding the allegations insufficient to establish bias or prejudice or demonstrate irreparable harm. The applicant's claims for industrial injury to her back and hypertension were previously denied in the 2013 decision. The Board noted that any claims not resolved in the 2013 award are dismissed due to the absence of a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ DisqualificationIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryHypertensionSupplemental Findings and AwardFinality of DecisionFive-Year Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. ADJ6756142, ADJ6756143, ADJ7560236
Regular
Mar 04, 2013

VIOLET RAFILA vs. MACY'S, MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

This order dismisses a Petition for Removal from Violet Rafila, Applicant, against Macy's, the Defendant. The Board found the petition untimely as it was filed more than 25 days after the January 24, 2013, decision. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The case remains scheduled for hearing on March 6, 2013.

Petition for RemovalUntimely Filing25-day deadline8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Dismissal OrderWCJ's ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardVan Nuys District OfficeSelf-Insured Employer
References
0
Case No. ADJ9588485
Regular
May 01, 2017

ROBIN COHEN vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CCI TEHACHAPI, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a typographical error in the date permanent disability benefits began, amending the Finding of Fact from March 15, 2013, to March 13, 2015. The Board affirmed the original award's finding that the applicant correctional officer sustained an industrial heart injury, applying the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.2. All other aspects of the original award were upheld.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 3212.2correctional officerindustrial injuryheart injurypermanent disability indemnitytypographical errorWCJ
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,276 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