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. ADJ2528253 [VNO 0109315] ADJ4079159 [VNO 0110903] ADJ1557998 [VNO 0100061] ADJ1727207 [VNO 0120684]
Regular
Sep 19, 2008

GORDON BERGELSON vs. SPORTSCOACH CORPORATION OF AMERICA, RSKCO

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the WCJ’s July 15, 2008 order relieving applicant’s counsel. The order relieving counsel is not a final order subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting Petition to Be Relieved as CounselWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeInterlocutory Procedural OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability of PartiesAttorney-Client RelationshipSignificant Prejudice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. ADJ4271541 (LBO 0393859)
Regular
May 15, 2014

DANILO YAP vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's Order Vacating the prior order relieving counsel was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the order. Applicant contended his attorney's withdrawal and alleged misconduct by both parties' counsel prejudiced his case. The WCAB concluded no extraordinary circumstances justified removal and applicant could seek reconsideration after a final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating OrderAttorneys of RecordLaw Offices of George HendersonWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFinal OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable Harm
References
5
Case No. ADJ1620559 (ANA 0373462)
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

Wayne Johnson vs. Tennant Company, Sentry Claims Service

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering applicant's counsel, defense counsel, and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide sworn declarations regarding an alleged ex parte communication. This communication apparently led the WCJ to vacate a prior submission order, citing the applicant's upcoming surgery and a utilization review denial resolution. The defendant seeks removal, claiming the WCJ improperly obtained this information. The WCAB is also ordering all future correspondence be directed to the Commissioners.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDecision after ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpineRight Lower ExtremityPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. ADJ1595121 (ANA 0369848) ADJ3409041 (ANA 0368368)
Regular
Jul 09, 2018

Victoriano Valadez, Marcos Arellano vs. Progressive Business Corporation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal as untimely filed. The petition sought to overturn an order relieving the applicant's attorney, which occurred over eight months prior to the filing. While the Board would have denied the petition on its merits had it been timely, it emphasized that the WCJ's prior order relieving counsel was not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB also clarified that claims of attorney misconduct and requests for case files must be raised before the WCJ.

WCABPetition for RemovalOrder Relieving Attorney of RecordPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingIncarcerated ApplicantGraiwer & KaplanLLPWithdrawal of CounselProcedural Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1997

In re Brian E.

This case details an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated the respondent as a person in need of supervision (PINS). The adjudication stemmed from the respondent's admission of facts regarding school and behavioral issues, leading to a consented placement with the Ulster County Department of Social Services. Respondent's counsel sought to be relieved from representation, arguing the absence of nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The court, upon review, agreed with counsel's assessment and granted the application to withdraw. Consequently, the Family Court's original order was affirmed.

Person in Need of SupervisionPINSFamily Court Act Article 7Counsel WithdrawalFrivolous AppealUlster CountyAppellate DivisionChild SupervisionBehavioral ProblemsSchool Problems
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1997

Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners v. PMNC

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied the defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel in a breach of contract action. The dispute involves Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P. (BNYCP) and PMNC, a joint venture, regarding the construction of a cogeneration facility in Brooklyn. BNYCP also sought to enforce a guaranty from The Parsons Corporation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the representation of a separate subsidiary of The Parsons Corporation on unrelated matters would not adversely affect the plaintiffs' counsel's independent judgment or involve conflicting interests.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractAttorney DisqualificationProfessional ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewJoint VentureGuaranty EnforcementLegal EthicsJudicial DecisionAffirmation
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 24,528 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