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. 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 The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.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

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1996

Schaefer v. RCP Associates

This case involves an appeal of an order in a Labor Law § 240 action where an injured plaintiff worker fell from a ladder. The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an earlier order denying third-party defendant Superior Acoustics, Inc.'s motion to set aside a jury verdict finding it 5% negligent. The order also imputed the plaintiff's negligence to Superior Acoustics, Inc., the employer, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to set aside the jury's verdict as to damages. The court found sufficient proof of the employer's failure to supervise and reiterated that the plaintiff's own negligence does not defeat their right to compensation under the Labor Law. Furthermore, the decision upheld setting aside the jury's inconsistent damages verdict, which awarded substantial future lost earnings but no future pain and suffering.

Labor Law § 240Jury VerdictNegligence ImputationDamagesFuture Lost EarningsPain and SufferingLoss of ServicesThird-Party DefendantEmployer LiabilityLadder Fall
References
4
Case No. ADJ1377755 (FRE 0242857) ADJ1891281 (FRE 0242858)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

RUDOLPH GUTIERREZ vs. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE, CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant Gutierrez's petition for reconsideration of a January 19, 2010 stipulation and order. Applicant contended the settlement was not secured with his consent. The Board treated his petition as a motion to set aside the award. The case is returned to the trial level for the judge to consider the set-aside petition and conduct further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderPro SeAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedReturned to Trial LevelAwardConsent
References
0
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685) ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592) ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order setting a mandatory settlement conference and deferring the request to set aside a prior order compelling medical examination attendance. The Board found that the issue of setting aside the two-year-old compelling order must be resolved before a settlement conference. Applicant must comply with the order or show good cause for setting it aside, and defendant may seek an order under Labor Code section 4053. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, starting with a status conference.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJDiscoverySet Aside OrderLabor Code section 4053Rescind OrderTrial Level
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bugge v. Sweet

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court in Otsego County which set aside a jury verdict in his favor for $10,000 and directed a verdict for the defendant. The case stemmed from a 1975 motor vehicle accident, with the central legal question being whether the plaintiff sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 671(4) at the time. The appellate court reviewed the medical evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the plaintiff's doctor. The court found the doctor's testimony regarding the permanency and causal link of the injury to the accident to be burdened with doubt, speculation, and inconsistency. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to establish the "serious injury" threshold required for recovery. Therefore, the order and judgment in favor of the defendant were affirmed.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSpinal FusionLumbo-sacral StrainCausationPermanencyMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

La Fountaine v. Franzese

This personal injury action concerns a plaintiff (a minor) who suffered lead poisoning between April 1992 and September 1993 while living in an apartment owned and managed by the defendants. Routine medical examinations revealed elevated blood lead levels, prompting the Albany County Department of Health to order lead abatement procedures, which the defendants performed inadequately. Experts testified that the lead poisoning caused permanent disorders, including ADHD, cognitive, and reading disorders, which were not capable of practical apportionment between pre-notice and post-notice exposure periods. The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $300,000 for future lost earnings, assigning 70% liability to the defendants. Defendants appealed the judgment and the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict, arguing lack of liability before notice, erroneous jury instructions, and excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment and order, finding the defendants' arguments without merit and upholding the jury's findings on non-apportionment of injuries and the reasonableness of the damage awards.

Lead poisoningLandlord liabilityPersonal injury damagesNon-apportionment of injuriesADHDCognitive disordersEnvironmental lead hazardInadequate abatementExpert medical testimonyJury verdict review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2009

In re Moona C.

An order of disposition from the Family Court, New York County, entered on October 26, 2009, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. This order brought up for review a fact-finding order from May 1, 2009, which determined that the respondent mother neglected her children. The appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as it was subsumed by the appeal from the dispositional order. The court also noted that the respondent's challenge to an interim visitation suspension was moot and not properly before the court. Furthermore, the Family Court's decision to permit one of the children, Robina C., to testify in camera was upheld, as it appropriately balanced the respondent's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being by allowing contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel. The affidavit of the social worker supporting the in camera testimony was found sufficient despite challenges to her expertise.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsIn Camera TestimonyDue ProcessVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional OrderMootness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 24,413 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