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. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358
Regular
Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Campbell & State of New York

Monica A. Campbell, a state employee, and her union, New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association (COPBA), entered into a disciplinary settlement agreement with her employer, the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH). This agreement established a one-year disciplinary evaluation period (DEP) during which Campbell could be terminated without recourse to arbitration if she committed misconduct. Following two incidents, OMH terminated Campbell's employment. Petitioners (Campbell and COPBA) sought to compel arbitration of the termination, arguing that the agreement did not explicitly exclude arbitration on the question of misconduct. Supreme Court ordered arbitration. Respondents (OMH) appealed, arguing the DEP constituted a probationary period where OMH had the right to make a threshold determination of misconduct without arbitration. The appellate court agreed with OMH, finding that the parties intended to exclude arbitration for the threshold determination of misconduct during the DEP, and that petitioners' sole remedy was judicial review under CPLR article 78. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order compelling arbitration was reversed, the petitioners' application denied, and the respondents' cross-application to stay arbitration was granted. The matter was remitted for consideration of petitioners' alternative CPLR article 78 request.

ArbitrationDisciplinary ActionEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic EmployeesProbationary PeriodMisconductJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ7574646
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

HEATHER YARBOROUGH vs. JENNY CRAIG, AIG INSURANCE c/o SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed 34 days after the order was served. The petition argued the administrative law judge erred by ordering treatment outside the Medical Provider Network, but the board found the petition was filed beyond the jurisdictional time limits. Furthermore, the board noted that the order compelling the defendant to arrange for a PQME evaluation and other examinations was not a final order, which is required for reconsideration. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingMPNMedical Provider NetworkNeurosurgeonOrthopedistNeurologistTreating Doctor
References
5
Case No. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hinterberger v. Catholic Health System, Inc.

This is a decision and order by Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio regarding various motions in a collective action and class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs, non-exempt hourly employees, allege that Defendants (health care organizations under Catholic Health System) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) by not paying for work performed during meal breaks, before/after shifts, and during training sessions. The court addresses Defendants' motion to compel discovery, Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a protective order, and Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to replead negligent misrepresentation and conversion claims. The court grants in part and denies in part the motion to compel, denies the protective order, and denies the motion to amend due to futility of the proposed negligent misrepresentation and conversion claims. The court also grants Defendants' request for attorney's fees related to the motion to compel due to Plaintiffs' unjustified non-compliance with discovery.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime PayMeal Break PolicyDiscovery SanctionsMotion to CompelProtective OrderMotion to AmendNegligent Misrepresentation
References
35
Case No. ADJ7741851
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

SANDRA GALINDO vs. WARNER BROTHERS, INC.

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The defendant, Warner Brothers, seeks reconsideration of an order compelling payment for a panel Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) second report, arguing it lacked substantial medical evidence. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found no legal basis for the defendant's refusal to pay. The defendant's claims of inaccurate medical history in the PQME's report were unsubstantiated despite multiple opportunities to present evidence. The Board affirmed the obligation to pay the PQME's fees, penalties, and interest.

Panel QMEPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to PayMedical-legal costsSubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code Section 462260-day payment periodPenalty and interestFrivolous actionsDue process
References
6
Case No. ADJ10363674
Regular
Nov 17, 2016

RUBY BRADLEY vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE; Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted By COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WORK COMP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ruby Bradley's petition for removal, upholding an order compelling her to attend a medical examination with a panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). Bradley claimed due process violations regarding notice and a replacement PQME panel, but the Board found she failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, noted Bradley's own admission contradicted her claim of premature scheduling and highlighted a prior agreement to proceed with the original PQME. The Board also admonished Bradley's counsel for misleadingly omitting material facts, potentially constituting an abuse of the system.

Petition for RemovalCompelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEIndustrial InjuryNervous SystemPsychiatric InjuriesDue ProcessReplacement Panel
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 24,395 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