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. ADJ8869367
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

LUIS CENDEJAS vs. AMERICAN LABOR POOL, INC., OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that they made a valid offer of modified work, relieving them of temporary disability obligations. However, the Board affirmed the judge's finding that the work offers were not sufficiently clear, lacked specificity regarding physical appropriateness, and failed to convey the exact terms to the applicant. Consequently, the employer did not meet their burden of proving a valid offer of modified work was made.

Petition for ReconsiderationModified Work OfferTemporary DisabilityPhysical AppropriatenessDoctor's RestrictionsVocational RehabilitationSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherOffer ValidityCommunication of OfferEmployer's Burden of Proof
References
2
Case No. ADJ6925034
Regular
May 12, 2011

FRANCIS LARA vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant, Bimbo Bakeries USA, sought reconsideration of an award increasing permanent disability payments by 15%, arguing they were entitled to a 15% decrease. This was based on their claim of offering the injured employee, Francis Lara, regular work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition because the defendant's offer of work was fatally flawed, being incomplete, unsigned, and not clearly tied to the employee's specific work restrictions at the time. The Board also noted the offer was made before the employee was declared permanent and stationary, further undermining its validity under Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A).

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A)Permanent and Stationary (P&S) reportPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injuryright lower extremitypermanent disabilitymodified workalternative work
References
1
Case No. ADJ2900532 (LAO 0867800)
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

MIGUEL SOTO vs. PIZZA HUT / YUM! BRANDS; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA

The Appeals Board vacated the prior award and remanded the case for a new decision on the application of Labor Code sections 4658(d)(2) and (d)(3)(A). The Board clarified that the 60-day period for offering modified work begins when the employer receives notice that the employee's disability is permanent and stationary, not from the physician's opined date. The Board also noted that the employer's offer must be in the form and manner prescribed by the administrative director, raising a question about the validity of an offer lacking a preparer's signature. Finally, the Board affirmed the substantiality of the medical evidence used by the trial judge and instructed the judge to correct a clerical error in attorney's fees.

Permanent and Stationary DateLabor Code Section 4658Modified WorkAlternative WorkTimeliness of OfferAdministrative Director RegulationsSubstantial Medical EvidenceAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. ADJ9290124
Regular
Aug 01, 2014

TONIE RUIZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IHSS, Legally Uninsured, Administered By YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The defendant sought reconsideration of an award of temporary disability benefits for an IHSS caregiver injured in 2012. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the award of temporary disability benefits. However, the Board clarified that benefits are limited to 104 weeks under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2). The Board also ruled that placing the applicant on a registry did not constitute a valid offer of modified work, as no actual offer was made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIn-Home Supportive ServicesIHSSDual EmploymentTemporary DisabilityLabor Code 4656(c)(2)Permanent and StationaryPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEAgreed Medical Examiner
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2001

Khalid v. Scagnelli

Plaintiff, Mohamed Khalid Ahmed Alsabbagh, was injured on November 7, 2000, after being struck by defendants' (Coca-Cola's) truck while bicycling. Six days later, a private investigator offered plaintiff a settlement. After indicating his intention to discharge his attorney, plaintiff negotiated and accepted a $30,000 settlement for a limited release, excepting medical expenses. Unbeknownst to the investigator, a $5 million lawsuit was commenced on November 16, 2000. The Trial Term denied defendants' motion to dismiss "as a matter of public policy". However, the Supreme Court, New York County, reversed this decision, upholding the validity of the settlement agreement, and dismissed the complaint, citing that a violation of Judiciary Law § 480's cooling-off period does not automatically void an agreement and that the defendants met their burden of proof regarding the release's validity.

Bicycle AccidentPersonal InjurySettlement AgreementRelease ValidityJudiciary Law § 480Motion to DismissContract LawRatificationNew York Supreme CourtAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonder v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Pharaoh Gonder filed a lawsuit against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. in New York state court, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. Dollar Tree removed the case to federal court and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement signed by Gonder upon commencing employment. Gonder disputed the validity and enforceability of the agreement, claiming he did not recall signing it. The court found that Gonder had indeed electronically signed a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, with the offer of employment serving as sufficient consideration. Furthermore, the court concluded that Dollar Tree had not waived its right to arbitrate through its participation in administrative investigations or the removal to federal court, noting the minimal litigation activity and lack of prejudice to Gonder. Consequently, the court granted Dollar Tree's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationElectronic SignatureContract LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionNew York City Human Rights Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Incorporation of the Village of Harrison

This proceeding, brought under Village Law section 2-224, challenged the validity of an election held on October 16, 1974, concerning the incorporation of the Village of Harrison within the Town of Harrison. The petitioner alleged five irregularities, including biased transportation, misleading communications from town officials, voter misinformation at polling places, an inconvenient polling location, and improper voter registration. Despite a strong majority (85%) in favor of incorporation, the petitioner sought to invalidate the results. The court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities were numerous enough to alter the election's outcome, concluding that the substantial majority for incorporation would not have been reversed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Election ChallengeVillage IncorporationVoter IrregularitiesTown of HarrisonSufficiency of EvidenceMajority VoteCampaign MisconductPolling PlaceVoter RegistrationVillage Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Forum v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal concerning the legality of an agreement made by the New York City Transit Authority (Authority) with the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and Amalgamated Association (Amalgamated), granting them exclusive collective bargaining rights for hourly paid employees. The Civil Service Forum, a labor union, and its members, employees of the Authority, initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing that these exclusive rights were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Special Term initially granted the Authority and TWU's motions to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Authority had the power under the Public Authorities Law to enter into such agreements. The court clarified that the agreement, while granting exclusive representation in grievance processing, still preserved individual employees' rights to present grievances and did not compel union membership. Ultimately, the court directed a declaratory judgment affirming the validity of the Authority's resolutions, election, agreements, and policy statements.

Labor LawCollective BargainingPublic AuthoritiesDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGrievance ProceduresExclusive RepresentationTransit Authority
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Starks

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,417 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