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. ADJ3293125 (SAC 0368540)
Regular
May 29, 2012

AMY ELDER SOUZA vs. MOTHERLODE HOLDING COMPANY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

This case involves a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially disapproved because it provided no benefit to the applicant while attorney fees were paid. Both parties petitioned for reconsideration, but the Appeals Board dismissed these as the disapproval order was not a final order. Treating the petitions as requests for removal, the Board rescinded both the disapproval and subsequent approval orders. The matter is returned to the trial level for the ALJ to determine the C&R's adequacy, specifically addressing the alleged overpayment of temporary disability.

Compromise and ReleaseDisapproved C&RReconsideration PetitionRemoval PetitionWCAB Rule 10859WCAB Rule 10882Future Medical TreatmentNew and Further DisabilityTemporary Disability CreditOverpayment
References
1
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. ADJ17371801; ADJ18218517
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

MARIO PALACIOS vs. PLAN B ADVANTAGE, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Mario Palacios petitioned for removal from a WCJ's order mandating in-person appearances for himself and two witnesses to verify signatures on a Compromise and Release (C&R). He also sought clarification on electronic signatures and challenged a prior C&R disapproval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the August 4, 2025 order and allowing Palacios to appear remotely to verify his signature. The Board declined to issue an advisory opinion on electronic signatures but referenced relevant codes, and deemed the challenge to the prior C&R disapproval moot due to an amended C&R.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseElectronic SignaturesIn-Person HearingRemote AppearanceDue ProcessWCJ OrderRescind OrderGood CauseWitness Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.

Motion PracticeOrder AffirmanceJudgment AffirmancePrior DeterminationOrder VacaturJudicial Panel DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
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. 2023-06-01704
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2024

Tucker, William v. LU, Inc.

The Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims issued an order amending a previous Expedited Hearing Order concerning temporary total disability benefits. The employer, LU, Inc., sought to alter the order, asserting they had paid the employee, William Tucker, his full wages until February 16, 2024, negating the need for the previously ordered lump-sum payment. Mr. Tucker concurred that no past temporary disability benefits were due until that date. Referencing Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207, the Court determined that while an employer can receive credit for wages paid, this credit cannot exceed the employee's compensation rate. Consequently, the Court vacated the prior order for past temporary disability benefits by agreement, and mandated LU or its carrier to commence weekly benefit payments of $1,065.41 from February 17, 2024, until Mr. Tucker reaches maximum medical improvement or returns to work.

Temporary Total DisabilityWage CreditExpedited HearingOrder AmendmentStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation ClaimsEmployer ObligationsEmployee RightsDisability BenefitsMotion to Alter
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leondopoulos v. Caradjas

The order was unanimously affirmed. The defendant was granted leave to answer the amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry. This is contingent upon the payment of $20 in costs and disbursements. No opinion was provided for this decision. The judges present for this order were Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis, and Shientag, JJ.

OrderAffirmedAmended ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsLeave to AnswerPanel DecisionJudicial Panel
References
0
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The City of New York moved to modify a prior contempt order to establish a hiring hall operator selection committee and secure compensation for its representatives. Defendant Local 28 opposed the compensation, suggesting alternative funding or a delay pending a financial audit. The court granted the modification, authorizing the committee's formation and ordering Local 28 to pay the plaintiff's representatives at the journeyperson hourly rate, plus expenses. The judge dismissed Local 28's financial hardship claims due to insufficient evidence and the union's history of non-compliance with anti-discrimination orders. This decision ensures the effective implementation of equal employment opportunities for nonwhite members through the hiring hall.

DiscriminationContemptHiring HallCompensationUnionAffirmative ActionEmployment OpportunitiesJudicial ReviewCivil RightsSanctions
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 28,529 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