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. 772 F.Supp. 1412
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. New York

Defendant Crosson moved for an order clarifying an August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment, which implemented a Second Circuit mandate declaring New York's lag-payroll law unconstitutional. Crosson argued that the Judgment enjoined the law's application to both unrepresented and represented employees, while State Defendants maintained it covered only represented employees. The Court acknowledged the Second Circuit's focus on represented employees due to contractual impairment but clarified its own Order and Judgment to include all employees, finding the lag-payroll statute non-severable. The Court reasoned that severing the statute to apply only to unrepresented employees would significantly alter the original legislative intent, reducing the expected savings by 90%. Consequently, the Court granted Crosson's motion, clarifying that the August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment applies to both unrepresented and represented employees.

Lag Payroll LawContract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionSecond Circuit MandateDeclaratory JudgmentRestitution of WagesSeverability of StatuteLegislative IntentUnrepresented EmployeesRepresented Employees
References
11
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. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Johns-Manville Corp.

This case involves appeals from a District Court's Opinion and Order concerning a Bankruptcy Court's Clarifying Order and Findings related to the Johns-Manville Corporation's asbestos bankruptcy. The original 1986 injunction barred direct suits against Manville's insurers, including Travelers. Subsequently, various plaintiff groups filed direct actions against Travelers, leading to settlements that the Bankruptcy Court approved. Objecting Insurers and Objecting Claimants appealed this approval, challenging the Bankruptcy Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the fairness of the settlement. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction to enjoin direct action suits and approve the settlements, considering these suits as indirect attempts to recover from Manville's insurance policies. However, the District Court vacated the "gate-keeping" provision of the Clarifying Order, finding it exceeded the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction. The motions to dismiss the appeals were denied.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcyInsurance LawDirect Action SuitsSettlement AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionBar OrderJudgment ReductionDue ProcessChapter 11 Reorganization
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. ADJ8314191
Regular
Apr 27, 2015

JUAN MELO vs. THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, THE GOLDEN BASEBALL LEAGUE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order for reimbursement of costs. The WCJ had ordered the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) to pay $1,350.00 to applicant's attorney for delays in clarifying insurance coverage. However, the Board clarified that Labor Code section 5811(a) does not permit the award of attorney's fees as costs, and any such award under Labor Code section 5813 would require proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, which was not provided. Therefore, the WCJ's order was improper.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for Reimbursement of CostsLabor Code section 5811(a)State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF)Coverage issuesContinuous trauma claimInsurance policyRidersPolicy premium
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Effner v. Scott

This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County, which partially granted a petitioner's application for modification of a prior visitation order concerning the parties' child. The unwed parties had a child in 1990, separated in 1991, and an order in March 1992 awarded custody to the petitioner with liberal visitation for the respondent father. Petitioner sought to limit weekday visitation, citing concerns from a mental health clinical evaluation. The court modified visitation, reducing the actual number of visitation days and clarifying the schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the mental health evaluation did not warrant further restriction and that the structured visitation schedule was supported by the record.

Family LawChild VisitationModification OrderBest Interest of ChildFamily Court ActMental Health EvaluationAppellate ReviewDelaware CountyCustody DisputeStructured Visitation
References
9
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. SBR 0338656
Regular
May 27, 2008

BRYAN YOUNG vs. CITY OF BEAUMONT, Permissibly Self-Insured c/o S.C.R.M.A.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, dismissed the applicant's petition, and granted removal. The Board rescinded the administrative law judge's order requiring the applicant to choose a physician from the employer's network. This decision clarifies that an employee has the right under Labor Code section 4605 to select and pay for their own physician, independent of employer-provided medical care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBryan YoungCity of BeaumontPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 4605Medical Provider NetworkPrimary Treating PhysicianConsulting Physician
References
4
Case No. ADJ8061031
Regular
Nov 08, 2014

VERONICA NGUYEN vs. BJ'S RESTAURANTS, ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of an order granting reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought from a final order, not an interlocutory procedural one. Granting reconsideration without resolving the underlying issues does not constitute a final order. The Board admonished the petitioner for wasting resources and ordered them to clarify their correct name.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory Procedural OrdersGranting ReconsiderationDismissedNon-final OrderAdmonish PetitionerWCJAppeals BoardLabor Code § 5900
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 24,666 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