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. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. ADJ3792067 (SAL 0069777)
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

JANE GILBERT vs. BORDERLINE FAMILY RESTAURANT, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to overturn an administrative law judge's order that sustained the applicant's objection to the defendant's declaration of readiness and sent the case off-calendar for further discovery. The WCAB found that the judge's order was not a final order, precluding reconsideration. Furthermore, removal was denied as the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and procedural defects in the applicant's objection were timely cured.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDeclaration of ReadinessObjectionCase Off CalendarFurther DiscoveryPenalty of PerjuryFinal OrderSubstantive RightsExtraordinary Remedy
References
13
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. ADJ9074641
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

KEITH LOWRIE vs. BRADFORD & BARTHEL, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Zenith Insurance Company's Petition for Removal. The Board found that an earlier order improperly sustained the applicant's objection to attending a Qualified Medical Examination (QME). This order contravened established law allowing either party to request a QME at any time after a claim form is filed. The Board rescinded the erroneous order, recognizing that its continued existence would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to the petitioner.

Petition for RemovalPQMEOrder Sustaining ObjectionLabor Code Sections 4060(d)4062.1(b)Mendoza v. Huntington HospitalClaim FormDiscovery DisputePanel Qualified Medical ExaminerCumulative Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ128102 (SAC 0358437)
Regular
Feb 08, 2010

SHAUN WOOD vs. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, permissibly self-insured, administered by BROADSPIRE

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding an order compelling employee depositions. The original order was issued ex parte, depriving the defendant of an opportunity to object. The Board found the order deficient because it lacked a required clause allowing it to be voided upon a timely objection showing good cause. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a hearing on the defendant's objections.

Petition for RemovalCompel AppearanceDepositionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 4553Serious and Willful MisconductRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelWalk-through Petition
References
0
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. ADJ9308094
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

ROBERT KING vs. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the underlying order compelling a new QME panel was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm resulted from the order. The Arbitrator had discretionary authority to order a new QME panel due to a dispute over the review of medical imaging. The defendant's due process claims were rejected as they did not object or request further development of the record at the arbitration hearing.

QME PanelPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalnon-final ordersubstantive rightsthreshold issueinterlocutorymedical discoverysignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ13227834
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

Efren Sifuentes Nava vs. San Carlos Roofing Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Defendant SCIF filed a petition for removal challenging an order to serve medical records issued on December 2, 2024, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ recommended dismissal because the defendant's objection to the order included a self-destruct clause, rendering the original order moot upon objection. The Appeals Board agreed that there was no active order to challenge and further noted the permissibility of a WCJ rescinding an offending order to promote judicial economy. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderSelf-Destruct ClauseMootRescissionJudicial EconomyAppeals BoardCost PetitionerMedical RecordsAdjudication Number
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 27,098 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