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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Claim of Williams v. New York State Department of Transportation

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1988, initially received permanent partial disability benefits at a mild rate in May 1996. Dissatisfied with this assessment, the claimant appealed, presenting medical evidence suggesting a more severe disability. This led the Workers’ Compensation Board to restore the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record concerning the degree of disability post-May 6, 1996. Although two physicians testified, with one indicating a moderate disability and another a total disability, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately awarded benefits at a moderate partial disability rate. Upon the claimant's subsequent appeal, the Board ruled that the claimant was precluded from raising the issue of their degree of disability, citing regulatory provisions. The appellate court found that the Board had abused its discretion, as the issue was explicitly remanded by the Board previously, and the claimant was still aggrieved by the WCLJ's award despite an increase in benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorMedical EvidenceDegree of DisabilityRemittalNew York LawAdministrative Appeal
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. ADJ9816268 (MF) ADJ9816270
Regular
Oct 24, 2018

ANTHONY MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to raise issues of permanent disability overpayment and credit between two claims, a specific left shoulder injury and a cumulative trauma injury. The Board found that these issues were not raised during the mandatory settlement conference or at trial, and therefore could not be considered for the first time on reconsideration due to a lack of due process. The defendant had ample opportunity and information to raise these issues earlier but failed to do so, making their claim of mutual mistake invalid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardLabor Code section 4850permanent disabilitytemporary total disabilitycumulative traumaspecific injurypetition for reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencepre-trial conference statement
References
12
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Case No. ADJ3748071 (LAO 0785567) ADJ3607480 (LAO 0784668)
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

RALPH OLIVAS vs. SMART & FINAL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves petitions for reconsideration from the applicant and lien claimants Sycamore Pharmacy and Bloch Medical Clinic regarding a WCJ's decision disallowing their liens. The WCJ found no industrial injury to the psyche and disallowed the liens because the primary treating physician, Dr. Schiffman, never adopted or commented on the secondary physicians' reports, failing to comply with Labor Code section 4061.5 and Rule 9785. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the lien claimants failed to meet their burden of proof, the tendered "newly discovered" evidence was not newly discovered, and the defendant did not waive their right to raise the issue of the primary physician's non-adoption.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryPsycheMedical Treatment LiensPrimary Treating Physician (PTP)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Joint Compromise and ReleaseStipulated Award
References
7
Case No. 532522
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Stacy Eastman

Claimant Stacy Eastman was injured at work and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was established with a 10% schedule loss of use (SLU) of her right leg. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this initial decision. Subsequently, Glens Falls Hospital, the employer, and its workers' compensation carrier applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review, contending that the Board had improperly failed to fully consider the issue of apportionment of the SLU award with a prior injury. The Board denied this application. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's denial, concluding that the denial was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion, as the employer had not demonstrated newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or that the Board improperly failed to consider the issues raised.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSchedule Loss of UseApportionmentReconsideration DenialAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousPrior InjuryMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1976

Claim of Leary v. Ward Baking Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's heart attack and subsequent compensation claim. The claimant initially appealed a referee's decision that denied his claim due to the accident not arising out of employment and being untimely filed. The Board reversed the referee on these specific issues and restored the case. The employer and carrier appealed, attempting to raise a notice requirement issue under section 18 of the Workers' Compensation Law, an issue not previously particularized before the Board. The court affirmed the decision, holding that the issue was not preserved for appellate review as it was not raised before the Board in the initial application for review.

Workers' Compensation LawProcedural LawNotice RequirementsTimeliness of ClaimAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationReferee DecisionBoard ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ2089309 (RDG 0122630)
Regular
Aug 19, 2009

SHAWN McMILLIAN vs. POINTER ENTERPRISES 416, INC., CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the trial level. The judge improperly reserved jurisdiction on temporary disability for periods not raised for trial and unilaterally issued a notice of intention to impose a penalty without a filed petition. These actions exceeded the scope of issues presented and improperly advocated for the applicant. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the issues originally raised by the parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardShawn McMillianPointer Enterprises 416Inc.California Restaurant Mutual Benefit CorporationADJ2089309Industrial InjuryNeck and Back InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ10035349
Regular
Nov 08, 2019

JOHN BLAIR vs. CITY OF TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the City of Torrance Police Department's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to challenge the weekly rate of permanent disability indemnity payments, an issue previously decided. California law prohibits successive petitions for reconsideration on issues already ruled upon, requiring parties to seek a writ of review instead. Any new issues raised by the defendant were deemed waived for not being raised at the first opportunity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationhypertensive heart diseasecoronary artery diseasepermanent disability indemnitysuccessive petitionwrit of reviewnewly aggrievedwaiver
References
6
Case No. ADJ1167311 (LBO 0303498) ADJ749429 (LBO 0296277)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

RAMON ZIEBA vs. BAILLY SHOWCASE, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied lien claimant Dr. Halote's petition for reconsideration. Dr. Halote sought reimbursement for psychiatric treatment, arguing it was separate from a psychiatric injury claim. However, the only issue presented at trial was whether the applicant sustained a psychiatric injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment. The Board found that the issue of the reasonableness of psychiatric treatment, for admitted orthopedic injuries, was not raised at trial and was therefore waived. Thus, the Board denied reconsideration as Dr. Halote could not raise this new issue for the first time on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injuryAOE/COElien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factadministrative law judgeLabor Codecompensabilitypsychiatric treatment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,366 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