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. ADJ8025431
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

Martha Brockhoff vs. SUZANNE MCNEELY (SENIOR PLANNING SERVICES), NUFILO OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Martha Brockhoff's petition for reconsideration of an approved compromise and release. Brockhoff claimed her former attorney did not fully explain the settlement terms. However, her petition was deemed "skeletal" and unsupported by specific references to the record or legal principles as required by statute and board rules. The Board noted that even if not dismissed for procedural defects, the petition would have been denied on its merits based on the judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseSkeletal PetitionLabor Code section 5902Rule 10846Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportDismissalInsufficient SpecificityLegal Grounds
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Martha Z.

This case involves an appeal from two orders of the Family Court of Chemung County concerning the adjudication of child abuse and neglect. The respondents, Vernon Z. and Connie Z., are the parents of two daughters, Martha and Margaret. The proceedings were initiated after Martha disclosed an incident of sexual contact by her father. Family Court found the father abused and neglected Martha, the mother neglected Martha, and both parents derivatively neglected Margaret. Respondents appealed, challenging the credibility and corroboration of Martha's statements. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's findings, noting that Martha's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated and the mother failed to dispute her neglect.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court ActCorroboration of Child StatementsCredibility AssessmentDerivative NeglectParental JudgmentAppellate ReviewSexual ContactEmotional Distress
References
9
Case No. ADJ7410410
Regular
Oct 29, 2014

MARTHA REYES vs. TARGET, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Martha Reyes' petition for reconsideration. While a utilization review (UR) decision should be signed, failure to do so does not invalidate it, per *Dubon II*. The applicant's recourse was to request Independent Medical Review (IMR), which she did. Therefore, the prior UR decision remained valid for 12 months, rendering the timeliness of the employer's denial of a subsequent request for authorization immaterial.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewDubon IILabor Code Section 4610Request for AuthorizationTimelinessPetition for ReconsiderationWCABEn Banc DecisionClaims Administrator
References
1
Case No. ADJ8119563
Regular
Dec 05, 2016

MARTHA HERRERA vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Marriott International (Defendant) with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB denied the petition, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board concluded that the applicant, Martha Herrera, did not demonstrate such harm, nor did she prove that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the removal petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyWCJ ReportDeniedCase No. ADJ8119563Marriott International
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levo v. Greenwald

Plaintiff Rocco Levo, a State employee, sustained severe injuries after being struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Martha B. Greenwald. Levo sued Greenwald and General Motors. Greenwald impleaded Levo's supervisor, Charles Diggins, alleging inadequate safety precautions. The jury found Greenwald 100% responsible and no cause of action on the third-party claim against Diggins. The trial court granted Greenwald's motion to set aside the verdict against Diggins and ordered a new trial, citing an error in precluding impeachment evidence regarding the State's indemnification of Diggins and his expert witnesses. Diggins appealed this decision. The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion, reversing the order and denying Greenwald's motion for a new trial.

discretionary powernew trialverdict set asideimpeachment evidenceexpert witness biasindemnificationPublic Officers LawCPLR 4404appellate reviewco-employee relationship
References
4
Case No. ADJ6968776
Regular
Apr 29, 2013

MARTHA IBARRA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, INC.

This case involves Martha Ibarra's cumulative trauma injury claim against 99 Cents Only Stores. The defendant sought to bar the claim under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that while the specific condition of prior medical records for the cumulative trauma injury was not met, the injury date being subsequent to notice of termination, as defined by Labor Code section 5412, satisfied the exception under section 3600(a)(10)(D). The Board amended the Findings of Fact to reflect this, affirmed the finding of injury to the upper extremities and spine, and returned the case for further proceedings, while deferring the issue of psychological injury.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3208.3(e)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCumulative Trauma InjuryUpper ExtremitiesSpinePsycheAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
References
0
Case No. ADJ7770118
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

Martha Escobar vs. Vista Cove Care Center, Amtrust North America

This order dismisses a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Martha Escobar, in relation to a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The petitioner formally withdrew their removal petition. Consequently, the Board has dismissed the petition as requested.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissed PetitionVista Cove Care CenterAmtrust North AmericaADJ7770118Anaheim District OfficeDeidra E. LoweRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. ADJ7111052
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

MARTHA BURTON vs. PARADISE BAKERS & CAFÉ, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Martha Burton's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB determined that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders, not interlocutory procedural orders. Burton challenged a Notice of Intention (NIT) Re: Sanctions, which the WCAB classified as an interlocutory order that does not resolve substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was not a final order subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesAdministrative Law JudgePre-trial OrdersNotice of Intention
References
5
Case No. LAO 0797035
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

MARTHA MORA vs. COMMERCE CASINO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a workers' compensation applicant, Martha Mora, and her employer, Commerce Casino, represented by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. The defendant appealed a prior award, challenging the $74\%$ permanent disability finding and seeking credit for vocational rehabilitation payments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original findings, adopting the WCJ's report and denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceWCJState Compensation Insurance FundIndustrial InjuryCase Number LAO 0797035
References
0
Case No. BAK 144423
Regular
Nov 13, 2007

Martha Gallegos vs. WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the prior award of temporary disability indemnity for Martha Gallegos after June 4, 2004. The Board found that Gallegos' resignation was due to her extended commute, not her industrial injury, thus disqualifying her from further temporary disability benefits. However, the Board affirmed the finding of 17% permanent disability, finding the treating physician's reports substantial evidence despite the defendant's arguments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCarpal TunnelUpper ExtremitiesTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentReconsiderationMedical CareQualified Medical Examiner
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 86 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