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. ADJ6853853
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KYB FUGFUGOSH vs. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that San Quentin State Prison committed serious and willful misconduct. The applicant, an inmate kitchen worker, sustained a right shoulder injury on June 18, 2008, after being ordered to work despite presenting medical documentation of his injury and post-surgical condition. The Board upheld the Administrative Law Judge's finding that prison officials' failure to acknowledge and act on the applicant's medical limitations constituted a reckless disregard for his safety, proximately causing his injury. The employer's arguments regarding perjured testimony and newly discovered evidence were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Quentin State PrisonState Compensation Insurance Fundserious and willful misconductadmitted injurykitchen workerarthroscopic acromioplastyrotator cuff tearsfailure to reportinmate request for interview
References
1
Case No. ADJ2590975
Regular
Aug 09, 2011

RAFAEL DELEON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR, MULE CREEK PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In **Deleon v. State of California, CDCR**, the defendant sought reconsideration of a decision filed May 20, 2011. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition, recognizing the need for further study of factual and legal issues. This action was deemed necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision. All future filings are to be directed to the WCAB's Commissioners' Office in San Francisco.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCDCRMule Creek PrisonState Compensation Insurance FundStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesDecision After ReconsiderationCommissioners' OfficeFrank M. Brass
References
0
Case No. ADJ18803348
Regular
May 30, 2025

FEDERICO PEREZ vs. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF WALNUT CREEK, WALNUT CREEK CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, First Baptist Church of Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek Christian Academy, and Church Mutual Insurance Company, in the case of applicant Federico Perez. The applicant alleged a right shoulder injury on September 7, 2023. The defendants were admonished for violating WCAB Rule 10945 by misstating material facts and referencing documents not in the trial record. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant provided pre-termination notice of the injury, and established injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and entitlement to temporary total disability, based on credible testimony and the Panel QME report of Dr. Adam Brooks. The decision also addressed the timeliness of the Board's action on reconsideration petitions under Labor Code section 5909 and the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSTransmission of CaseNotice of TransmissionReport and RecommendationWCAB Rule 10945Misstatement of Facts
References
6
Case No. ADJ2590975 (STK 0190237)
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

RAFAEL DELEON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR, MULE CREEK PRISON, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed a prior award granting medical treatment for applicant's diabetes. Despite the defendant's argument that diabetes treatment was for a non-industrial condition, the Board found it necessary to prevent worsening of the applicant's industrially caused heart disease. Medical evaluators concluded that controlling diabetes is an essential component of treating industrial heart conditions, making the treatment compensable. The decision hinges on the principle that treatment for non-industrial conditions is covered when essential to cure or relieve the effects of an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryHeart ConditionDiabetesGastrointestinal DifficultiesAgreed Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianCardiologistMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1998

Perez v. Spring Creek Associates, L.P.

This case involves an appeal by Accura Contracting Corporation from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial action stemmed from a personal injury sustained by an unnamed plaintiff, an employee of Accura, who fell while performing exterior scraping work and alleged violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the defendants, collectively known as Spring Creek, and subsequently granted Spring Creek's motion for common-law indemnification against Accura. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff was not provided with adequate safety equipment for elevated work, a direct cause of the injuries, thus entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court further concluded that Spring Creek, being vicariously liable, was rightfully granted full indemnification from Accura, the party determined to be wholly at fault.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentScaffolding Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2004

Crowley v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

William Crowley, after pleading guilty to four counts, was sentenced to twenty-nine months incarceration in 2002. The sentencing judge recommended he serve the final eighteen months in a halfway house (Community Confinement Center - CCC), consistent with the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) longstanding practice. However, in December 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) adopted a new legal interpretation, significantly restricting CCC placements to the final two months of a sentence. Crowley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging this retroactive application. The court granted Crowley's petition, ruling that the new BOP policy was invalid as it was not promulgated in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and was based on an incorrect statutory interpretation. Furthermore, the court held that the retroactive application of the new policy to Crowley's sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, as the original sentencing relied on the prior BOP policy.

Habeas CorpusBureau of Prisons PolicyCommunity Confinement CentersAdministrative Procedure ActStatutory InterpretationEx Post Facto ClauseSentencing GuidelinesRetroactive ApplicationJudicial DiscretionPrisoner Rights
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fahie v. Thornburgh

Plaintiff Realdalist A. Fahie, a former probationary correctional officer at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, brought a Title VII action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, alleging discrimination based on race and national origin following his termination in 1984. Fahie claimed that his termination was a pretext for discrimination, citing instances of racial slurs and disparate treatment compared to white employees. The court found that Fahie failed to prove he was performing his work in a satisfactory manner or that non-minority workers were retained while he was terminated. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and judgment was entered for the defendant.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationProbationary Employee TerminationPrima Facie CaseBurdenshiftingPretext for DiscriminationCorrectional OfficerFederal Bureau of Prisons
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2013

Hodges v. Attorney General

Plaintiff Jerry Hodges, a correctional officer, sued his employer, the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act. He alleged that his temporary modified assignment (TAD) and the denial of his reassignment bids constituted adverse employment actions and created a hostile work environment. The Court granted the BOP's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It found Hodges failed to exhaust administrative remedies for most claims, and did not demonstrate "materially adverse" employment actions for his discrimination and retaliation claims. Furthermore, the Court rejected the hostile work environment claim, concluding it was improperly raised and that the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive environment.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationRehabilitation ActSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionHostile Work EnvironmentAdministrative ExhaustionEEO ComplaintTemporary Modified AssignmentMedical Restrictions
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shue v. Red Creek Central School District

This opinion addresses post-verdict motions concerning collateral source deductions and preverdict interest on future damages following a verdict for the plaintiff in a wrongful death action. Joseph Shue's wife, Donna Shue, and their children, Joseph, Derek, and Ryan Shue, were awarded damages after Joseph Shue's death in a workplace accident involving defendants Red Creek Central School District and Dominick P. Massa and Sons, Inc. The court ruled that Social Security benefits received by Mrs. Shue are deductible collateral sources under CPLR 4545. However, life insurance proceeds from Prudential and Guardian, despite being employer-paid, were deemed exempt from deduction, consistent with the statute's exemption for life insurance. Furthermore, the court resolved a conflict between EPTL 5-4.3 and CPLR Article 50-B regarding preverdict interest on future damages in wrongful death actions. Citing Pay v State of New York, the court held that CPLR Article 50-B, enacted after Milbrandt v Green Refractories Co., should be applied, mandating that future damages be discounted to the date of liability determination for interest calculation and attorney's fees.

Collateral SourceFuture DamagesPreverdict InterestWrongful Death ActionLabor Law ViolationsCPLR 4545CPLR Article 50-BEPTL 5-4.3Social Security BenefitsLife Insurance Exemption
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 221 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