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. ADJ13901094
Regular
Jun 19, 2025

MONA MURILLO vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Mona Murillo filed a Petition for Reconsideration on March 20, 2025, challenging a December 13, 2024, Findings of Fact by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had found industrial injury to Murillo's facial bones and left knee, sustained while working for the California Department of Corrections, but also determined she could not collect permanent disability benefits while incarcerated. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that Murillo's Petition was both untimely, having been filed after the January 7, 2025, deadline, and unverified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactInmate LaborerIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability BenefitsIncarcerationUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5909
References
7
Case No. ADJ11896735; ADJ3117080
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORRAINE GONSALVES vs. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CAMP FIRE USA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) addressed a petition for removal filed by Lorraine Gonsalves (applicant) after she filed a document challenging previous orders, which the Board treated as a petition for removal. The applicant had previously sought reconsideration of a February 18, 2025 decision related to ADJ11896735 and sought review of March 26, 2025 orders taking ADJ3117080 off calendar and continuing ADJ11896735. The Board dismissed the petition for removal, finding that the February 18, 2025 decision was a non-final, interlocutory order from which a petition for reconsideration could not be taken and that the petition was untimely. Regarding the March 26, 2025 orders, the Board determined the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPWCJOff CalendarContinued TrialSet Aside OrderLack of ProsecutionTimelinessFinal Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 1981

Claim of Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The respondent Workers’ Compensation Board moved to dismiss appeals filed by the appellant on March 27, 1980, May 7, 1980, and August 18, 1980. The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss the March 27 and May 7 appeals as moot due to a subsequent board determination. The August 18, 1980 appeal was dismissed because the underlying board decision, which merely referred the case to an impartial medical specialist, was nonfinal and therefore not appealable. The claimant's motion dated January 29, 1981, was granted only to the extent that the original board file could be provided as an exhibit. Another motion by the claimant dated March 16, 1981, seeking vacatur of decisions, consolidation of appeals, and change of venue, was denied.

Appeal DismissalMootnessNonfinal DecisionWorkers' Compensation AppealsMotion PracticeJudicial ReviewCase ReferralMedical SpecialistBoard FileConsolidation of Appeals
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoodack v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Mark Hoodack (plaintiff) sued International Business Machines, Inc. (defendant) on March 7, 2000, alleging wrongful termination in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), specifically 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Hoodack claimed his termination interfered with his attainment of retirement benefits under IBM's Retirement Bridge Leave of Absence (RBLOA) program. IBM moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for retaliatory discharge actions under New York Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The court found that a § 510 ERISA claim accrues when the employer communicates the termination decision, which occurred shortly after March 27, 1997, making Hoodack's March 7, 2000 filing untimely. The court also rejected arguments for tolling the statute of limitations, concluding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for a § 510 claim. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAWrongful TerminationStatute of LimitationsRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentAdministrative ExhaustionEmployee BenefitsPension RightsClaim AccrualTolling Doctrine
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khan

7-Eleven, Inc. filed a complaint against Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan, and Imran M. Khan (the Khans), franchisee-owners and employees of five 7-Eleven stores on Long Island. 7-Eleven alleged that the Defendants diverted profits from 2009 to 2013 in violation of their franchise agreements. Both parties moved for injunctive relief, and United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended granting 7-Eleven’s motion and denying the Khans’ motion. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed objections to this report. The Court found substantial evidence of fraud, including unrecorded sales, misuse of POS keys, and significant inventory shortages. Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting 7-Eleven's motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the Khans' cross-motion for injunctive relief.

Franchise Agreement DisputePreliminary InjunctionFraudulent TransactionsPOS System MisuseInventory ShortagesTrademark InfringementBreach of ContractDe Novo ReviewMagistrate Judge ReportIrreparable Harm
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04711
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC

Plaintiff Jose Orellana, a worker performing demolition, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while cutting an air duct. He initiated legal action against the building owner, 7 West 34th Street, LLC, and the general contractor, W5 Group, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties sought summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing the presence of triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that neither Orellana nor the defendants had demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The court also clarified that comparative negligence is not a valid defense against the strict liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1), reinforcing the finding of unresolved factual disputes.

Ladder AccidentDemolition InjuriesConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceTriable Issues of FactPersonal Injury
References
20
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. ADJ7508584
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

CALVIN WRIGHT vs. HEALTH NET, INC.; ARCH INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Removal filed by the defendants (Health Net, Inc., Arch Insurance Co., and Sedgwick Management Services, Inc.) against applicant Calvin Wright. The petition challenged an order issued by WCJ Elena Jackson on March 7, 2024, which had set specific issues for trial. Citing the report of WCJ Cirina A. Rose, who identified an oversight by WCJ Jackson and factual discrepancies, the Appeals Board found that removal was warranted. Consequently, the Board granted the Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's March 7, 2024 decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalRescindedReturned to Trial LevelWCJ Report and RecommendationJoint Compromise & ReleaseFuture Medical OpenMPN IssueHome CarePetition for Removal Timeliness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 1985

Caporino v. General Foods Corp.

Gabriel Caporino, an employee of General Foods Corporation, disappeared in March 1974. His wife, the claimant, filed for workers' compensation death benefits, but the case was initially closed. Five years later, the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County declared Caporino legally dead as of March 7, 1979, based on his unexplained absence. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reopened the case and awarded benefits using the 1979 death date. The employer appealed, arguing that the date of death should be the date of disappearance in 1974. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing EPTL 2-1.7 (a) which supports the presumption of death five years after an unexplained absence.

Workers' CompensationPresumption of DeathDisappearanceDate of DeathEPTL 2-1.7Appellate ReviewEmployer AppealDeath BenefitsUnexplained AbsenceLegal Presumption
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1979

Umeko, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers Union

Umeko, Inc. (petitioner) moved to stay arbitration with the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers Union (respondent). The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Primrose Sportswear, Inc., which was later sold to Umeko. Umeko challenged its obligation under a successorship clause, initiating an NLRB unfair labor practice charge. The court initially issued a temporary restraining order on March 12, 1979, but later denied Umeko's motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO on March 20, 1979, citing Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Subsequently, the Union sought attorneys' fees of $1,061.00 from Northwestern National Insurance Co., surety on Umeko's bond, arguing the TRO was erroneously granted under Section 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The court denied the Union's motion, finding a waiver and concluding that a stay of arbitration is not the type of 'injunction' to which Section 7 applies.

Labor LawArbitrationNorris-LaGuardia ActTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionAttorneys' FeesCollective Bargaining AgreementSuccessorshipWaiverSurety Bond
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,888 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