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. Adv. No. 12-09801(SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Old Carco LLC

Chrysler Group LLC (New Chrysler) moved to enforce a prior Sale Order, arguing it precluded Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana from using Old Carco LLC's unemployment insurance experience rating to determine New Chrysler's tax rate. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, denied the motion without prejudice. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because the states provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for New Chrysler to challenge the tax assessments in state courts. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional barrier of the Tax Injunction Act, which prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax collection, even in bankruptcy proceedings related to interpreting a sale order.

BankruptcyTax Injunction ActUnemployment Insurance TaxSuccessor LiabilitySale OrderFree and ClearJurisdictionState TaxationFederalismChapter 11
References
56
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. ADJ10183569
Regular
Dec 26, 2017

LEAMON PERKINS vs. DON L, KNOX, DLK CAPITAL INC., AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision dismisses a petition for reconsideration and denies a petition for removal. The Board found the WCJ's order denying a petition to vacate without prejudice was not a "final" order, thus precluding reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied removal, as the insurer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from an order that preserves their right to address coverage issues at trial. The insurer can raise coverage disputes at the subsequent trial because the WCJ's prior order was not final.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueWithout PrejudiceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. ADJ10393758
Regular
Jun 08, 2018

JOSE BASALDUA VALDEZ vs. NORCAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Rutherford Ashbury, LLC, Patrick F. Mockler

Defendants sought dismissal from a workers' compensation case after the applicant's employer's insurer accepted coverage. The WCJ initially denied this dismissal but later dismissed one defendant without prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the defendants' Petition for Removal, finding it moot due to the subsequent order. However, the Board, on its own motion, granted removal to amend the later order and dismiss the remaining defendant without prejudice, correcting a perceived clerical error.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalGranting RemovalDecision After RemovalOrder Denying Petition to DismissMinute OrderJoinderGeneral ContractorUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSCIF
References
1
Case No. ADJ8118860
Regular
Jul 25, 2012

REBECCA BURSON BROWN vs. NEC ELECTRONICS, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal seeking to overturn a prior administrative order denying their request for a third-party credit without prejudice. The defendant argued a due process violation, while the applicant suggested a settlement was anticipated. The Appeals Board denied removal because the prior denial was without prejudice, allowing the defendant to refile with proper documentation regarding net recovery and employer negligence. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the WCJ's procedural ruling.

Petition for RemovalThird Party CreditLabor Code section 3861Employer NegligenceDue ProcessWCJ OrderWithout PrejudiceNet RecoveryApplicant ObjectionWCAB Rule 10843
References
0
Case No. ADJ6747918
Regular
Dec 27, 2010

BERNARD ELKINS vs. SCULLY DISTRIBUTIONS SERVICES, HARTFORD SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order denying sanctions without prejudice was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. The defendant had sought sanctions for alleged frivolous litigation, but the judge ordered them to first resolve venue disputes in a related San Bernardino case. This decision upholds the principle that reconsideration and removal are reserved for final orders or exceptional circumstances.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalsanctionsfrivolous litigationbad-faith litigationvenuechoice of venuewithout prejudicefinal order
References
3
Case No. ADJ10290065
Regular
Nov 20, 2019

HOWARD ROSS (deceased), SUSAN G. ROSS vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Permissibly Self-Insured; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Defendant's Petition for Removal. The Defendant sought to remove an order denying their Petition to Change Venue without prejudice, arguing significant prejudice and irreparable harm. The WCAB found the Defendant failed to demonstrate such harm and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the case will proceed without removal, allowing discovery and hearings to continue.

Petition for RemovalVenue PetitionIndustrial InjuryAsbestos ExposureSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAppeals BoardExtraordinary RemedyDiscovery
References
1
Case No. ADJ8316615
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

ROYZELL WHITE vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, and the defect was not cured despite notice. Furthermore, the WCAB would have dismissed the petition even if verified, as it sought reconsideration of a non-final procedural order. The lien claimant's Petition for Removal was also denied as it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The original order denying the lien claimant's petition was issued without prejudice, allowing proper service and further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-IBR medical-legal disputeLien claimantVerificationFinal orderInterlocutory decisionWCJEAMS
References
9
Case No. ADJ3992440 (SBR 0339508)
Regular
Nov 23, 2011

LOUIE M. GONZALES vs. MOBILE MINI, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's Minute Order was not a final order, as it did not dispose of substantive rights. Additionally, the Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm as required for such an extraordinary remedy. The WCJ had previously denied the defendant's petition to dismiss for lack of prosecution without prejudice, allowing it to be resubmitted in one year. The defendant sought reconsideration based on alleged new circumstances regarding the applicant's parole violation.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition to Dismiss for Lack of ProsecutionIncarcerated ApplicantParole ViolationIncompetent while incarceratedFinal OrderSubstantive Rights and LiabilitiesSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 30,104 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