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. ADJ686632 (LAO 0573956)
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

GARY TOBIA vs. LA PETITE BOULANGERIA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY \& SURETY COMPANY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the WCJ's August 18, 2016 order compelling discovery. The Board found the order to be overly broad and issued without a sufficient record to weigh discovery disputes. Furthermore, the relevance of the requested documents, particularly those dating back to the 1980s, was not adequately established, especially as the sole outstanding issue appears to be medical treatment. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify outstanding issues and create a proper record for any future discovery orders.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumWCJ OrderDiscovery DisputeClaims FileNon-Privileged RecordsEmployer's First Report of InjuryJob-Site PostingsMedical Treatment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ3388311 (ANA 0384909)
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

SHARON WATT LeBLANC vs. APRIA HEALTHCARE, AIG

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. The Board rescinded the original findings due to procedural issues, including the WCJ's failure to properly frame the issues of permanent disability and apportionment, and the lack of a clear finding on the psyche injury. The case is returned to the trial level for reframing of issues, development of the record, and a decision on all outstanding matters, including the contested temporary disability award.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentQualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedist1997 Schedule2005 ScheduleApportionment
References
0
Case No. ADJ2250216 (AHM 0151781)
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

JOHN RANDLE vs. SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, MINNESOTA VIKINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a previous award, finding that while jurisdiction was proper and the statute of limitations was not a bar, the original decision failed to adequately address several issues. Specifically, the Board remanded the case to determine the proper defendant(s) and excluded the applicant's heart condition from permanent disability ratings due to insufficient medical evidence of industrial causation. The WCJ must also resolve other outstanding issues raised at trial before issuing a new decision.

John RandleSeattle SeahawksMinnesota Vikingsjurisdictioncontract of hirestatute of limitationscumulative traumaagreed medical evaluatorspermanent disabilityapportionment
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. ADJ3139011 (WCK 0039676) ADJ3737138 (WCK 0039682) ADJ2116694 (WCK 0039685)
Regular
Dec 09, 2008

Diane Pearson vs. Gray C Home Care, Republic Indemnity Company of America

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original award and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for full determination of all deferred issues. The WCAB agreed that the applicant is totally permanently disabled and ordered a new final decision addressing all outstanding issues, including potential cardiovascular injuries and medical necessity of mobility equipment, to clarify all injured body parts and potentially issue a non-apportioned award. This decision aims to ensure all relevant evidence is considered before a final determination of the applicant's entitlement to benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLife PensionMedical NecessityDeep Vein ThrombosisStroke
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. 09 Civ. 3043(PAE)
Regular Panel Decision

Hart v. Rick's Cabaret International, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses several pre-trial issues in a class action lawsuit brought by exotic dancers against Rick’s Cabaret NY and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning minimum wages and mandatory tip-out fees. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that performance fees received by dancers cannot offset the Club’s liability for mandatory tip-out fees, which were deemed unlawful deductions under NYLL § 193(3)(a). The Court further affirmed that claims related to these tip-out fees are appropriate for class-wide resolution, consistent with the Mt. Clemens doctrine for calculating damages when employer records are insufficient. Finally, the defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal regarding class certification, the "reasonable customer" standard, and wage offset issues was denied, as the questions did not meet the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Consequently, a single trial is scheduled for April 27, 2015, to resolve all outstanding jury issues.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMinimum WageTip-out FeesExotic DancersInterlocutory AppealClass CertificationDamages CalculationEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,928 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