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. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. ADJ8666036
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

MARIA VALENCIA DE ESPINOZA vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order. California law only permits reconsideration of "final" orders that determine substantive rights or threshold issues. The original order in this case, a Notice of Intention to Dismiss by a non-physician lien claimant, was an interlocutory procedural decision and thus not appealable. The Board will return the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to address the petition as an objection to the non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNotice of Intention to DismissLien Claimant
References
4
Case No. ADJ2003074 (SFO 0486401) (ADJ3727915 - CONSOLIDATED
Regular
Apr 05, 2010

ALEXANDRA MONTEITH vs. EDWARD LITTLEJOHN, M.D., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES (BHHC)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed TIG Specialty Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration because it sought to appeal a non-final order. The WCAB also denied TIG's petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that TIG failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. This decision confirms that appeals can only be made from final orders that determine substantive rights and liabilities. The WCAB found TIG's argument regarding a non-party's interference with the settlement was not properly before them due to the non-final nature of the appealed order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseVacating OrderAdministrative Law JudgeNon-party InterferenceCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)PrejudiceFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ71 92587
Regular
Mar 04, 2016

RICHARD SMITH vs. HENDRICKSON TRUCKING, INC., AIG CLAIMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves Richard Smith's petition for reconsideration. The Board dismissed the petition because it was filed from a non-final order, which is not appealable. Reconsideration is only proper for final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. Procedural or evidentiary decisions made during the proceedings are considered interlocutory and not final. Therefore, Smith's petition, lacking specificity and challenging a non-final procedural order, was properly dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory procedural decisionEvidentiary decisionMandatory Settlement ConferenceApplicant representing himself
References
4
Case No. ADJ6977398
Regular
Jun 06, 2022

JOANN KROEPIL vs. VONS, ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an applicant's petition for reconsideration because it sought review of a non-final interlocutory order. The order in question merely continued a mandatory settlement conference, which is a procedural step and not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. As petitions for reconsideration can only be taken from final orders, the Board dismissed the petition. The Board also advised the applicant to seek removal rather than reconsideration for non-final orders in the future.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueThreshold IssueSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial HearingWCJ Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ9168456, ADJ9177378
Regular
Aug 18, 2015

MARTA RIVAS vs. OVERHILL FARMS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Marta Rivas's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final, interlocutory order, which is not appealable. Appeals are only permitted from final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The Board also admonished the applicant's counsel for filing a petition on a non-final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationnon-final orderfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutoryprocedural decisionevidentiary decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huffman v. Lake City Contracting Corp.

Claimant Huffman sought workers' compensation benefits from Lake City Contracting Corporation. A referee found a 66% schedule loss of a left arm and dual insurance coverage by State Insurance Fund and USF&G. Both insurers contested coverage and the award's excessiveness. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the schedule award but found State Insurance Fund had no coverage and required further development on USF&G's liability, remanding the case. The employer and USF&G appealed this non-final Board decision. The Workers' Compensation Board then moved to dismiss these appeals on the grounds that its decision was interlocutory and non-appealable. The court granted the motion, dismissing the appeals, noting that non-final decisions are not appealable and protective notices of appeal are unnecessary in such instances.

Appeal DismissalInterlocutory DecisionNon-final OrderCoverage DisputeSchedule Loss AwardProtective Notice of AppealAppellate ProcedureInsurance CoverageMotion PracticeJudicial Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheahan v. Brady

Plaintiff Danielle Sheahan, a white woman, was terminated from her position at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in April 1992, after being hired in May 1991. The defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury, claimed she was fired for submitting an altered college transcript. However, the plaintiff alleged racial and color discrimination, asserting that her mostly Black co-workers and supervisors conspired against her, fabricating the transcript alteration accusation. Sheahan pursued administrative remedies, first with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on October 16, 1992. Subsequently, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which also dismissed her case on October 22, 1992, based on the erroneous belief that an MSPB appeal was still pending. Plaintiff then filed a civil suit in federal court on November 12, 1992. Critically, on November 9, 1992, the Treasury Department had filed a Request to Reopen the EEOC's October 22 decision. The court examined the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, specifically concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the finality of EEOC actions. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1613.234, a timely request to reopen by either party renders an EEOC decision non-final for the purpose of initiating a civil action. Consequently, the defendant's request to reopen on November 9, 1992, made the EEOC's October 22 decision non-final before Sheahan filed her lawsuit on November 12, 1992. Therefore, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and suggested that either party could renew a request to reopen the EEOC decision, anticipating it would be granted given the EEOC's original erroneous finding.

Federal employment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActRacial discriminationColor discriminationWrongful terminationAdministrative exhaustionEEOC decision finalitySubject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismiss
References
11
Case No. ADJ10990338
Regular
Nov 30, 2017

NOEMI GAMEZ vs. KNOTT S BERRY FARM, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was based on a non-final order concerning venue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Defense attorney Matthew Boyer was admonished for filing the petition despite acknowledging a non-final order. Future misconduct may result in sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutoryVenueSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,661 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