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

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. ADJ3792067 (SAL 0069777)
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

JANE GILBERT vs. BORDERLINE FAMILY RESTAURANT, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to overturn an administrative law judge's order that sustained the applicant's objection to the defendant's declaration of readiness and sent the case off-calendar for further discovery. The WCAB found that the judge's order was not a final order, precluding reconsideration. Furthermore, removal was denied as the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and procedural defects in the applicant's objection were timely cured.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDeclaration of ReadinessObjectionCase Off CalendarFurther DiscoveryPenalty of PerjuryFinal OrderSubstantive RightsExtraordinary Remedy
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. ADJ9308094
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

ROBERT KING vs. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the underlying order compelling a new QME panel was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm resulted from the order. The Arbitrator had discretionary authority to order a new QME panel due to a dispute over the review of medical imaging. The defendant's due process claims were rejected as they did not object or request further development of the record at the arbitration hearing.

QME PanelPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalnon-final ordersubstantive rightsthreshold issueinterlocutorymedical discoverysignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ7350346
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

TENNE PHAM vs. HAWAIIAN GARDEN CASINO, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This order denies Tenne Pham's Petition for Removal in a workers' compensation case against Hawaiian Garden Casino and Travelers Insurance Company. The Appeals Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge, denying the removal. Additionally, the Board ordered a correction of a clerical error in a previous order to remove one of the case numbers from the caption. Therefore, the Petition for Removal is denied, and the prior order is amended.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeClerical ErrorDenying RemovalCorrecting Clerical ErrorStrike Case NumberOrder Denying RemovalADJ3545303ADJ7350346
References
0
Case No. ADJ9214889
Regular
Dec 08, 2014

JIE BAI vs. PEBBLE BEACH, INTERCARE

This case involves applicant Jie Bai's petitions for reconsideration and removal stemming from two separate orders by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions, adopting the judge's reasoning. Reconsideration was denied regarding sanctions imposed on applicant's attorney for a late appearance, finding the attorney's tardiness and lack of excuse justified the sanction. Removal was denied regarding a change of venue to Salinas, as the judge found good cause based on the applicant's residence, injury location, and logistical convenience, despite the applicant's counsel's objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Imposing SanctionsOrder Changing VenueWorkers' Compensation JudgeLabor Code §5813Title 8CCR §10561Failure to Appear
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milan Express Co. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.

The Chief Judge reviewed objections to a Magistrate Judge's order concerning arbitration and venue. The Magistrate Judge had previously granted Milan Express Co., Inc.'s motion to stop arbitration and denied Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc.'s motions to compel arbitration and transfer venue. The Chief Judge conducted a de novo review and upheld the Magistrate Judge's findings. The arbitration clause was deemed invalid under Nebraska law, as the Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) related to an insurance policy but did not fall under the exception for contracts between insurance companies. The motion to transfer venue was also denied, with the court emphasizing the convenience of witnesses in Tennessee over the contractual forum-selection clause. The court ultimately adopted the magistrate judge's decisions.

Arbitration Agreement ValidityForum Selection Clause EnforceabilityMotion to Compel ArbitrationMotion to Stay ArbitrationTransfer of VenueNebraska Statutory InterpretationFederal Arbitration Act ApplicationReinsurance Contract AnalysisEquitable Estoppel DoctrineWaiver of Rights
References
49
Case No. ADJ6531287
Regular
Apr 07, 2009

Corey Nakatani vs. Los Alamitos Racetrack, Tristar Management

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order taking the case off calendar for further medical discovery. The applicant argued that the defendant waived objections by not timely objecting to his readiness to proceed and that their subsequent objection lacked good cause. The Board found no substantial prejudice to the applicant from the delay, especially since he had returned to work and had prior relevant cases. Therefore, the petition was denied to allow both parties to adequately develop the record.

Petition for RemovalWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCAB Rule 10416Treating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryPermanent and StationaryMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. ADJ1138124
Regular
Dec 02, 2011

MARIA BARAHONA vs. WESTLAKE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, WAUSAU INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien. The dismissal was based on the lien claimant's failure to appear at a trial and subsequently file an objection to the notice of intention to dismiss within the statutory timeframe. The Board found that the lien claimant was properly served and failed to demonstrate good cause for their non-appearance or untimely objection, thus not denying them due process. Therefore, the lien claimant's petition was denied.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of IntentionUntimely ObjectionDue ProcessOfficial Address RecordFailure to AppearWCJ ReportFamily Emergency
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 36,494 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