Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3030472

Regular

Jul 01, 2010

RAYMOND SIKES vs. SBC/PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO., LIBERTY MUTUAL 29073 GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, SBC/Pacific Bell Telephone Co. This reconsideration was sought regarding a previous decision served on April 23, 2010. The Board determined that granting reconsideration was necessary due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action will allow for a more complete understanding of the record and ensure a just and reasoned decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationGRANTINGOPINION AND ORDERstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionfurther proceedingsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners

References

Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)

Regular

May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau

References

Case No. 527101

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 07, 2019

Matter of Bell v. Glens Falls Ready Mix Co., Inc.

Walter Bell, a diesel mechanic/driver, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding his schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right arm. Bell sustained work-related injuries requiring surgery and received workers' compensation benefits. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found an 80% SLU, the Board, crediting Dr. Maloney's opinion, determined a 50% SLU of the right shoulder and added 10% for elbow defects, resulting in a 60% SLU of the right arm based on the New York State Guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the guidelines for calculating SLU awards for combined upper extremity injuries.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryMedical EvaluationTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Appellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPermanent Impairment Guidelines

References

Case No. ADJ347577

Regular

Mar 09, 2011

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, ODIE PRETTYMAN, PACIFIC BELL, CAMBRIDGE SACRAMENTO, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT, SEDGWICK CIGA GLENDALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration regarding a penalty on delayed temporary disability payments. The WCJ had previously ordered Pacific Bell to pay the overdue temporary disability benefits and deferred the penalty issue. Pacific Bell argued the penalty claim was resolved under Labor Code §5814(c) upon payment, but the Board found no merit in this argument. The matter is returned to the trial level for resolution of the applicant's attorney fees related to the penalty under Labor Code §5814.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5814.5Attorneys' FeesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Pacific BellTemporary Disability IndemnityPenaltiesInterestAward

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing

References

Case No. ADJ1099489 (VNO 0555304)

Regular

Jan 15, 2013

MICHELLE HALLIE vs. PACIFIC BELL AND TELEPHONE (AT&T successor in interest)

This case involves applicant Michelle Hallie and defendant Pacific Bell (AT&T) seeking reconsideration of a decision filed October 22, 2012. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is taken to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to render a just decision after appropriate further proceedings. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific BellAT&T successorSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedings

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Bahr v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves a complaint initiated by Ricky Carnivale, later substituted by Morton Bahr, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, against the New York Telephone Company. The complainant alleged a violation of Section 900-2.0 (subd. c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, pertaining to the transportation of individuals to replace striking employees. The court meticulously analyzed the definitions within the Administrative Code, particularly focusing on what constitutes a 'strikebreaker' and the involvement of parties 'not directly involved in a strike.' The judge concluded that the New York Telephone Company was directly involved in the strike, rendering certain provisions inapplicable. Crucially, the court found a lack of evidence that the individuals brought in met the statutory definition of 'strikebreakers' who 'customarily and repeatedly' offer themselves for employment during a strike. Therefore, the court ruled that a complaint should not be issued against the defendant.

StrikeLabor DisputeStrikebreakersAdministrative CodeNew York City LawUnion RightsEmployer RightsComplaint DenialIndustrial RelationsSubstitute Complainant

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Le Myre v. La Belle

This case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. The Board found that the claimant, a 15-year-old groom, suffered a disabling injury within the course of employment and established an employer-employee relationship with Stephen M. La Belle, owner of Steve Belle’s Racing Stable. La Belle contended the claimant was a volunteer, denying any payment. The Board, however, credited the claimant’s testimony regarding the nature of the work, payment, and La Belle's control, finding substantial evidence for an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Employer-Employee DisputeSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility AssessmentAppellate AffirmationMinor EmploymentEquine IndustryOccupational InjuryWage Non-Payment ClaimSaratoga CountyBoard Decision Appeal

References

Case No. ADJ347577 (SAC 0220919)

Regular

Jul 09, 2009

STEPHEN FLANNERY vs. G & O SERVICES, RELIANCE INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, PACIFC BELL

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed an award for applicant Stephen Flannery's back and psyche injury. Pacific Bell, the special employer, was found jointly and severally liable with the general employer's insurer, Reliance (now CIGA), for ongoing benefits, as Pacific Bell's self-insurance constitutes "other insurance." The Board reversed the WCJ's award of temporary total disability beyond the five-year jurisdictional limit unless the disability straddled the anniversary date. The doctrine of laches was found inapplicable against CIGA, and CIGA was not liable for EDD's lien as Pacific Bell was the primary source of benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAReliance Insurance liquidationCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPacific Bellspecial employerjoint and several liabilitylachesnew and further disabilityfive-year jurisdictional period

References

Showing 1-10 of 4,002 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

References

Showing 1-10 of 4,002 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.