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. ADJ8339009
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

WINSTON ROCKEFELLER (Dec'd), SUZANNA ROCKEFELLER (Dependent), ERIKA OSWALD (Dependent) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION HUBQ-ADMINISTRATION; legally uninsured; administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board intends to rescind its prior order granting reconsideration and dismiss the applicant's petition as moot. This action is prompted by the defendant's assertion that a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner has been appointed and has issued reports, rendering the original dispute regarding the disqualification of the previous PQME moot. The Board will proceed with rescinding and dismissing unless the applicant demonstrates good cause why the issue remains live. No decision on the merits of the original petition has been made.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMERule 41.5(d)(2)(A)disqualifying conflict of interestmoot issueNotice of Moot IssueOpinion and Order Granting Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. STK 0175350
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

FRANCIS NZIBO vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This case involves applicant Francis Nzibo's claim for penalties against Kaiser Permanente for alleged unreasonable delay in providing cervical surgery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to dismiss the petition for reconsideration as moot because there is no evidence presented as to whether the applicant has actually undergone the authorized surgery. If surgery was not performed, no compensation payment was delayed, rendering the penalty claim moot.

Moot petitionPetition for reconsiderationCervical surgeryUnreasonable delayMedical care provisionPenaltiesWCJ findingsLabor Code section 5814Authorization of surgeryFailure to present
References
0
Case No. ADJ11991353
Regular
Mar 30, 2020

TEOFILA DICKERSON vs. ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding it moot. While the WCJ erred by not addressing the medical treatment issue at the expedited hearing, a subsequent Findings and Award was issued without challenge. This award determined temporary disability, rendering the prior dispute regarding treatment resolution moot for now. The Board advises filing a new DOR if disputes arise, as the WCJ must address all issues presented.

Petition for RemovalPrimary Treating PhysicianExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)MootLabor Code section 5313Appeals Board en banc
References
1
Case No. ADA
Regular
Jul 18, 2011

DANIEL CUEVAS vs. OLTMAN'S CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in Liquidation, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC. (Servicing Facility)

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant CIGA regarding an award of psychiatric treatment for an industrial ankle injury. The applicant, Daniel Cuevas, passed away from cancer, rendering the issue of his entitlement to further medical treatment moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition and rescinded the original award. The Board substituted a new finding stating that the applicant's death mooted the treatment issue.

CIGAliquidationreconsiderationmootpsychiatric treatmentcortisone injectionindustrial ankle injurymedical treatment awardrescindsubstituted
References
0
Case No. ADJ2524908 (MON 0254667)
Regular
Sep 12, 2014

Michelle Sampay vs. Wackenhut, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. David Silver, who sought removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) judge's orders. The judge had bifurcated Dr. Silver's lien from sanctions issues and declined to enforce a subpoena for a claims adjuster. The WCAB dismissed Dr. Silver's petition for removal as moot because a subsequent order appointing an independent bill reviewer rendered the removal issue moot. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent decision can petition for reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalWCJLien ClaimantDavid Silver M.D.WackenhutGallagher BassettWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjurySecurity Officer
References
0
Case No. ADJ2896668 (OAK 0224622)
Regular
Jan 31, 2013

MONICA GARRETSON MILLER vs. JACKSON CREEK DENTAL GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the defendant sought to remove the case from an expedited hearing, arguing certain issues were improperly included. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal as moot because the hearing had been taken off calendar. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level for a full hearing on all issues raised, including medical treatment adequacy, and ordered the claims examiner to appear and testify. The Board noted that while MPN issues and attorney fees were not expedited issues in 2012, statutory amendments now include them.

Petition for RemovalExpedited HearingTreatment DenialsMPNAttorney's FeesDeclaration of ReadinessClaims ExaminerUtilization ReviewMedical Provider NetworkLabor Code Section 5502(b)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eddy v. White

Plaintiff Leon H. Eddy, a highway superintendent, was severely injured in July 1999 when struck by a car driven by August E. White while assisting County of Otsego employees. Eddy and his wife sued White and the County, alleging the County failed to provide adequate warning signs. The County initiated a third-party action against the Town of Plainfield. The County later moved to amend its answer to include a 'special employee' defense, arguing Eddy's recovery was limited to workers' compensation, and also moved to strike the note of issue. The Supreme Court denied these motions, finding the defense lacked merit and the note of issue issue moot, and dismissed the third-party complaint. This appeal reviewed the Supreme Court's denial of the County's motion to amend and the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Employee DoctrineMotion to Amend PleadingCPLR 3025 (b)Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityControl TestAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ8873837
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

HUGO A. GARCIA ROJAS vs. SWEANEY PAINT & DRYWALL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant filed a petition for removal challenging the presiding judge's inaction on a venue change request and an expedited hearing. However, the presiding judge subsequently issued orders that addressed these issues by taking the hearing off calendar and transferring venue. Therefore, the defendant's petition for removal is moot and has been dismissed by the Appeals Board.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Change of VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation Judge (PWCJ)Expedited HearingOff CalendarTransferring VenueWCABMootDismissedBakersfield District Office
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,128 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