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
Jun 20, 2003

Consilvio v. Alan L.

The Supreme Court reversed a prior order that would have transferred a respondent from the Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, a secure facility, to a nonsecure psychiatric facility. The respondent had been confined since March 1998 after being adjudicated not responsible for crimes including rape, sexual abuse, kidnapping, and robbery. The court found that the respondent continued to suffer from a dangerous mental disorder, specifically antisocial personality disorder, and posed a physical danger to himself or others, contrary to the lower court's finding. Psychological evaluations indicated a high risk of reoffending due to a persistent lack of insight, remorse, and resistance to therapy. Consequently, the court granted the hospital's petition for a subsequent retention order, authorizing continued custody in a secure setting.

Antisocial Personality DisorderRetention OrderSecure Psychiatric FacilityNonsecure Psychiatric FacilityCriminal Procedure Law 330.20Dangerous Mental DisorderSexual AbuseRapeKidnappingRobbery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of People (Int'l Workers Order)

This Per Curiam decision affirmed the liquidation order against the International Workers Order (I.W.O.). The court found the I.W.O.'s continued operation to be financially "hazardous" and in violation of its charter and state laws due to its prolonged political activities, including financing the Communist Party and disseminating its literature. These unauthorized actions, spanning nearly two decades, were deemed sufficient grounds for liquidation under sections 511 (e) and (f), 463 (c) and (d) of the Insurance Law, and section 671 of the Penal Law. The decision also addressed concerns from policyholders, confirming that arrangements had been made for their reinsurance on substantially similar terms, thus mitigating potential undue hardship.

LiquidationInsurance LawPenal LawPolitical ActivitiesCommunist PartyCharter ViolationHazardous Financial OperationPolicyholder ProtectionReinsuranceAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ2342373 (LAO 0512482) ADJ3525697 (LAO 0534774)
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ALICE BRYANT vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The applicant seeks reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order continuing a hearing. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the order of continuance was not a final order, and thus not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a). Any request to reconsider the 1998 order of dismissal would be untimely as it was filed nearly 17 years late, and such dismissals can generally only be set aside for extrinsic fraud or mistake. The applicant was cautioned about potential sanctions for frivolous filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of ContinuanceDismissal for Lack of ProsecutionFinal OrderTimelinessLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5903Supplemental PetitionExtrinsic Fraud
References
6
Case No. ADJ2858126 (LAO 0805680)
Regular
Aug 25, 2011

APOLONIA CORRALES vs. SILGAN PLASTICS CORP., GALLAGHER BASSETT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a Petition for Removal filed by lien claimant David Silver, M.D., challenging an order to continue a matter to lien trial for further record development. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding Dr. Silver was not aggrieved by the June 8, 2011, order as it did not order record development. Furthermore, the Board found Dr. Silver failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal regarding the continuance. The petition was also dismissed as untimely and waived concerning a prior rescission order for which Dr. Silver had previously withdrawn a removal petition.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ OrderFurther Development of RecordDue ProcessExigencyWCAB Rule 10843(a)Aggrieved PartyIrreparable Harm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Edward L.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of retention issued by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which continued the appellant's involuntary commitment at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center. The appellate court reviewed the evidence supporting the retention, specifically focusing on whether the hospital had established by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was mentally ill and posed a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others, as required by Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. The court found the evidence, primarily based on the testimony of Dr. Alain Kruh and hospital records, to be insufficient to justify continued retention. Dr. Kruh's opinions, which relied on past incidents and the appellant's lack of insight, were deemed to lack adequate substantiation of current dangerousness. Consequently, the order for continued retention was reversed, and Pilgrim Psychiatric Center was directed to release the appellant, affirming the appellant's constitutional right to liberty when the threshold for involuntary commitment is not met.

Mental Health LawInvoluntary CommitmentPsychiatric HospitalRight to LibertyDue ProcessClear and Convincing EvidenceDanger to Self or OthersSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewPatient Rights
References
4
Case No. ADJ3778927 (SFO 0460851) ADJ334222 (OAK0285716) ADJ2101319 (SFO0437718) ADJ4065670 (OAK0285715)
Regular
Dec 21, 2010

Kimberly Roberts vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kimberly Roberts' petition for reconsideration because the order she appealed was a pre-trial order continuing a status conference, not a final decision. The Board also denied her petition for removal, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning. Roberts' claims of manipulation, defamation, and misconduct were not addressed due to the procedural defect of appealing a non-final order. The appeals board upheld the judge's decision to continue the status conference.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law Judge Pro TemContinuanceStatus ConferenceTrial SettingLabor Code Section 132(a)Permanent Disability AdvancesMileage Reimbursement
References
3
Case No. ADJ4257489 (VNO 0545109) ADJ1819339 (VNO 0545111)
Regular
Apr 27, 2009

LUZ GALARZA vs. ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN CARE OF BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought these actions after the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) continued the trial to await a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (Panel QME) chiropractic report. The defendant argued prejudice and due process violations regarding a psychiatric evaluation, but the Board found no final order was issued and no substantial prejudice warranted removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's interlocutory procedural order allowing discovery to continue and found no error in the continuation of the trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorChiropracticsPsychiatric EvaluationInterlocutory Procedural OrdersSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
7
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. ADJ9310265, ADJ9563677, ADJ9805680
Regular
Dec 07, 2015

ADAM SENF vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order closing discovery and setting a trial date was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, especially given the extensive delays already caused by the defendant. The Board noted the defendant's pattern of seeking continuances and cautioned their attorney regarding potential sanctions for delaying tactics. Ultimately, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision to move the case towards trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Closing DiscoverySetting for TrialWCJFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor Code section 5502(d)(1)Declaration of Readiness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Torres

Carlos Torres, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offenses, moved for reconsideration of his detention order, arguing that a key cooperating witness, Frederick Rolle, had been discredited. U.S. Magistrate Judge Payson had initially ordered Torres detained due to danger to the community, a decision affirmed by U.S. District Judge Larimer. Despite Rolle's testimony being discounted after he failed a lie detector test, Judge Payson maintained that the remaining evidence—including corroboration from a confidential informant, seized evidence from Torres's home (cocaine, shotgun, bulletproof vest, cash), and evidence of unexplained wealth—still strongly supported his detention. The court found that no conditions could adequately assure community safety if Torres were released. Therefore, Torres's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his detention was continued.

DetentionReconsiderationVacaturDanger to CommunityRisk of FlightDrug TraffickingFirearms OffenseCocaineConfidential InformantCooperating Witness
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 24,634 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