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 The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.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
Apr 20, 2006

In re the Arbitration between Mays-Carr & State Farm Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied her petition seeking to set aside an arbitration award and to obtain a new hearing before a different arbitrator. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator either exceeded his power or imperfectly executed it, and also alleged partiality, referencing CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (ii), (iii). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, asserting that an arbitrator's power is exceeded only when the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or explicitly surpasses enumerated limitations. It found the arbitrator's determination, which denied the petitioner an award for economic loss beyond basic economic loss, to be rational and supported by the record, especially given the absence of a serious injury finding. Furthermore, the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's claims of arbitrator bias as speculative, stating that past adverse rulings against her counsel do not inherently establish a lack of impartiality.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardArbitrator ImpartialityExceeded PowerImperfect ExecutionSerious InjuryEconomic LossAppellate ReviewNew York State
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
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
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. 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. 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. ADJ10805554
Regular
Sep 12, 2025

CARMEN FRANKLIN vs. LAW OFFICE OF LINDA FULLERTON, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings, Award, and Order (F,A&O) issued by a WCJ on June 26, 2025, which set aside an earlier August 16, 2024 Award approving stipulations and found applicant owed permanent disability benefits. Defendant contended the stipulations were not based on mutual mistake and challenged a Notice of Intent (NIT) to issue sanctions. The Appeals Board, having timely acted on the petition, determined that the F,A&O was a final order subject to reconsideration but applied the removal standard because defendant was challenging only an interlocutory finding. Finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, the Appeals Board denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderStipulationsMutual Mistake of FactPermanent Disability BenefitsNotice of IntentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2007

Lazier v. Strickland Avenue Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant Styles Steel Erecting & Steel Fabrications and a cross-appeal by the defendant third-party plaintiff 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. The appeals concern an action to recover damages for personal injuries, specifically focusing on motions to set aside a jury verdict regarding fault apportionment and to strike expert witness testimony. The Supreme Court's decision to grant the motion to set aside the verdict finding 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. 70% at fault was affirmed, as no evidence showed its authority to supervise the work. The court also affirmed the denial of Styles Steel's motion to strike expert testimony and to set aside the jury's finding of 30% fault against it, concluding there was a valid line of reasoning for the jury's verdict, including the finding of a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and appeals from earlier orders were dismissed as superseded by the final order.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictFault ApportionmentExpert WitnessCPLR 4404CPLR 3101Labor Law 200Workers' Compensation Law 11Grave InjuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Albee

Plaintiff Gary D. Carpenter, a blacktop paver, sustained serious injuries when he was struck and dragged by a dump truck driven by defendant Bruce W. Albee while working on Interstate Route 88. Carpenter and his wife commenced a personal injury action against Albee and his employer. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs' motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial were denied. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the jury's finding of no negligence was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that there was conflicting evidence that the jury could fairly interpret in the defendant's favor, and affirmed the lower court's judgment and order.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceAutomobile AccidentWorkplace AccidentConflicting TestimonyCredibility IssuesAffirmed Judgment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 31,929 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