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. ADJ10459640
Regular
Dec 01, 2019

Antonio Venegas vs. Baron HR Staffing, Kruse and Sons, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding an order that had taken the case off calendar. The applicant argued the removal order deprived him of due process, as joining additional parties was not necessary for trial. The Board found that while joining parties might be necessary, taking the case off calendar hindered the system's purpose of prompt benefit payment. The matter is returned to the trial level for placement back on calendar, with a status conference suggested if delays are needed for joinder.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalJoint and Several LiabilityGeneral and Special EmploymentDue ProcessExpedited HearingPriority ConferenceLabor Code Section 3602(d)Insurance Code Section 11663Off Calendar
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. ADJ3823182
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

CONNA SMITH vs. SPRAY, GOULD & BOWERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant's Petition for Removal because she failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. While the Board treated the petition as timely filed due to issues with service of the Notice of Hearing, it found that removal was not warranted. The Board noted that the applicant requested an expedited hearing on issues that were previously taken off calendar and not adequately specified, justifying the WCJ's decision to set a status conference instead. The Board also warned the applicant about potential vexatious litigant status.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedExpedited HearingStatus ConferenceTimelinessProof of ServiceMail ServiceNotice of HearingWCABAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ10020893
Regular
Aug 21, 2017

TZITZIRI BOLANOS ZACARIAS vs. MARZ FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Zenith Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of a $250 sanction order. The sanction was imposed because Zenith and its attorneys failed to appear at a status conference due to an alleged calendaring error. Zenith argued this was an inadvertent mistake, not bad faith, and requested relief under WCAB Rule 10561. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report that found no reasonable excuse for the failure to appear. One commissioner dissented, believing the sanctions were unjust given the isolated, inadvertent nature of the calendaring error and Zenith's prompt resolution of the underlying issue.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsStatus ConferenceNotice of Intention to SanctionReasonable ExcuseCalendaring ErrorWCAB Rule 10561Labor Code section 5813Bad Faith
References
0
Case No. ADJ16491268; ADJ15884384; ADJ16161110; ADJ16161057; ADJ16161093; ADJ15760386; ADJ18891808; ADJ19153721; ADJ16116250
Significant

Steve Hoddinott, et al. vs. Bravo Security Services, Inc.; National Liability Fire Ins. Co., administered by Biberk Business Insurance, et al.

The Appeals Board issued a notice to set a status conference to assist the parties in further discussing their stipulations with a designated hearing officer.

En BancRemovalStipulationSupplemental BriefingStatus ConferenceHearing OfficerDeputy CommissionerAppeals BoardAdjudication NumbersBravo Security Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1980

In re the Claim of Caruso

This case concerns an appeal by Professional Data Services, Inc. from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a claimant, who worked from home as a key punch operator for Professional Data Services, Inc., was an employee rather than an independent contractor, making her eligible for benefits. The employer provided equipment, controlled work distribution, and set deadlines, which were key factors in determining the employment relationship. The court rejected the employer's argument that a signed contract classifying the claimant as an independent contractor was binding, citing concerns about duress and the Industrial Commissioner's statutory authority to determine employment status under Labor Law § 597. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance benefitsLabor LawSubstantial evidenceContractual agreementDuressAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal Board decisionKey punch operator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Case No. 25874/98
Regular Panel Decision

Jun Chi Guan v. Tuscan Dairy Farms

This dissenting opinion concerns a case where plaintiff Shao Zhen Kwan, a grandmother, sought damages for emotional injuries after witnessing her grandson's fatal accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that a grandparent does not qualify as "immediate family" for emotional distress claims under New York law and that the grandmother did not sufficiently witness the event. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The dissenting judge argues that established precedent does not preclude grandparents from "immediate family" status, citing their special legal recognition and caregiving roles. Furthermore, the judge contends that contemporaneous awareness, rather than literal witnessing, is sufficient for such claims. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Immediate Family DoctrineZone of Danger RuleEmotional Distress DamagesBystander RecoveryNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressGrandparent Visitation RightsNew York Tort LawSummary Judgment MotionDe Facto Parent StatusContemporaneous Awareness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Glaze v. Villa Manufacturing Co.

The court examined whether the decedent was an independent contractor, determining it was a factual question within the Workers' Compensation Board's purview. Evidence supported the independent contractor status, including the appellant’s field supervisor's testimony of no control over the decedent's work or hours, merely checking quality. Further proof included the decedent's bill for work, accepted payment via a non-payroll check without deductions, and the appellant's long-standing business practice of referring kitchen cabinet installations to subcontractors. Despite potential contrary inferences, the board's prerogative to credit its chosen evidence was upheld. Consequently, the decision appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division were reversed, reinstating the Workers' Compensation Board's original decision to disallow the claim.

Independent ContractorWorkers' CompensationQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceClaim DisallowanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlPayment MethodSubcontractors
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,512 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