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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to resettle a prior decision from April 5, 1993, seeking to substitute Marla Strow for the deceased defendant Jerome Strow and to include prejudgment interest in the judgment. The court denied the substitution motion without prejudice, directing an application to the Surrogate's Court and then a motion in the Supreme Court. However, the branch of the motion concerning prejudgment interest was granted, leading to the recall and vacation of the original April 5, 1993 decision, and the substitution of the present decision and order. In this new decision, the appeal against Jerome Strow was dismissed, and the order pertaining to him was vacated because he died before the summary judgment motion was decided. Conversely, the court reversed the prior order concerning defendants Strab Construction Corp. and Gary Rabinowitz, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for $1,205,000, and remitting the case for the calculation of prejudgment interest and attorney fees.

Promissory NotesSummary JudgmentPrejudgment InterestSubstitution of PartiesDeceased DefendantStatute of FraudsOral AgreementAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County
References
8
Case No. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

DONALD K. SMITH vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. ADJ10239649
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

, Applicant, vs. , Defendants.

The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed over twenty days after the Order Approving Compromise and Release. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level to determine if the applicant's claims of fraud regarding his employer's identity and insurance coverage constitute good cause to set aside the original settlement order. The applicant alleged he was misled into settling based on false information about his employer's insurance status. The Board acknowledges these allegations, if proven, could justify setting aside the order.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseuntimelyFraudSet Aside OrderJoinderDeclarative JudgmentGood CauseInequitableMistake
References
13
Case No. ADJ7781989; ADJ8262771
Regular
Oct 03, 2013

MIRIAN GARCIA vs. COOPER COLD FOODS, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY as administrator for STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is granting reconsideration of its own prior decision and rescinding a July 23, 2013 decision that had overturned a prior finding of 2% permanent disability for applicant's right knee injury. The WCAB determined that its August 9, 2012 order granting reconsideration was improvidently granted because the applicant had already filed a successive and improper petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the prior order and the subsequent rescinded decision are vacated, and the applicant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

WCABReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjurySuccessive PetitionImprovidently GrantedVacated
References
4
Case No. ADJ8150716
Regular
Apr 29, 2013

CHRIS ARCE vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order setting trial was interlocutory, not final. The WCAB granted removal of the order, finding applicant was denied due process by lack of notice for a status conference. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the order setting trial and substituted an order converting the trial date to a mandatory settlement conference. This decision aims to address potential prejudice to the applicant and promote judicial economy.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanySedgwick CMSADJ8150716Supplemental Petition for ReconsiderationDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJ OrderThird Party CreditDue ProcessMandatory Settlement Conference
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. ADJ9173159
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

GARY COTTLE vs. TONY'S EXPRESS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS' SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior administrative law judge's (WCJ) order. This order addressed penalties for unreasonable delay in payment and sanctions for bad faith litigation. Crucially, the WCAB has not received a petition for reconsideration from defendant CTSA and requires them to submit a copy of their petition and proof of timely filing within 20 days. Failure to comply will result in the WCAB proceeding with only the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayCompensation PaymentLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith LitigationLienTimely FiledProof of Service
References
0
Case No. ADJ8759846
Regular
Jun 05, 2025

Manuel Agurto vs. Peterberg Construction, Inc.; Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Applicant, Manuel Agurto, seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where the WCJ found injury to his psyche and determined his average weekly wage. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision (OOD) also included findings of injury to other body parts and awarded future medical for some. Applicant challenged various interlocutory issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to rescind the F&O and substitute it with a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) to reflect all of the WCJ's findings, awards, and orders, including additional body parts injured and an award of future medical, while deferring other issues for further development of the record. The Board admonished applicant's attorneys for frivolous conduct.

AOE/COEpsyche injuryAMEPQMEoccupational group 480Labor Code 4453(c)(4)petition for reconsiderationfinal orderinterlocutory issuesremoval standard
References
8
Case No. ADJ7872929
Regular
Aug 26, 2013

SAMUEL FRANCO vs. JCT COMPANY, INC.; FIRSTCOMP OMAHA, ENDURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the appealed order was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's alternative Petition for Removal, recognizing significant prejudice to the applicant due to the inconvenience and cost of appearing at the Long Beach District Office. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the case transferred to the Van Nuys District Office for venue. The WCAB also cautioned the applicant's attorney regarding the inappropriate filing of a reconsideration petition on a non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalPetition to Change of VenueWCJCumulative Industrial InjuryDelivery DriverLower ExtremitiesBackHipHernia
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 27,359 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