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. ADJ408647 (FRE 0248555)
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

PATROCINA RAMSEY vs. SKYWEST AIRLINES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in *Ramsey v. Skywest Airlines* and amended the prior decision. Specifically, the first paragraph of the "Orders" from the February 14, 2013 decision was rescinded. The matter was then returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding potential sanctions.

Patrocina RamseySkyWest AirlinesSedgwick Claims ManagementADJ408647FRE 0248555Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWCJsanctions
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2001

McDaniel v. Fischione Construction Co.

The plaintiff, an employee of Keith Ramsey Drywall Services, Inc., was injured after falling from stacked drywall walk-ups while installing drywall. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that the walk-ups failed to provide proper protection and rejecting the defendant's recalcitrant worker defense. The court also granted Fischione Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for common-law indemnification against Keith Ramsey Drywall Services, Inc., as Fischione only exercised general supervisory authority over the work site. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that Supreme Court properly granted both the plaintiff's cross-motion and Fischione's motion for summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1) ViolationStacked Walk-ups FailureWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityThird-Party IndemnificationSupervisory AuthorityAppellate ReviewConstruction Site InjurySummary Judgment MotionUnsafe Practices
References
6
Case No. ADJ9289025
Regular
Jan 31, 2020

RAMSEY ALSAYEH vs. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind a finding regarding the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). This rescission was due to insufficient evidence of when the claim form was received by the employer, precluding evaluation of the 90-day period. However, the Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision that the parties' stipulation accepting injury AOE/COE to the applicant's low back was binding and that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause to set it aside. The Board found no due process violation in not allowing witness testimony, as the stipulation itself served as evidence of compensability.

Stipulations and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code §5402(b)Presumption of CompensabilityDue ProcessGood CauseFraudSpecial CircumstancesSubrosa Video
References
18
Case No. ADJ2155279 (RIV 0040729)
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

JACK RAMSEY vs. CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Sedgwick CMS, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amended a previous award to defer the issue of attorney fees for enforcing an award of Labor Code section 5710 fees. The WCAB affirmed the remainder of the award, including a $100 penalty for unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment, finding the 100-day delay in authorizing treatment with the applicant's chosen physician was unreasonable. The Board also affirmed the award of attorney fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the medical treatment award. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the amount of section 5814.5 fees, with a dissenting opinion arguing for further proceedings on the unreasonable delay issue due to insufficient evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGALegion Insurance CompanySedgwick CMSJack RamseyLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Labor Code section 5710Medical Provider NetworkMPN
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Black

This civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, involves protestors and activists who alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The plaintiffs displayed graphic anti-abortion photo-murals and claimed that university officials intentionally allowed counter-demonstrators to obstruct their exhibit, thereby impairing their freedom of speech and equal protection rights. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, as well as the plaintiffs' standing to sue. It denied the motion to dismiss for the remaining plaintiffs—Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., UB Students for Life, and Matthew Ramsey—finding they plausibly alleged constitutional violations based on viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. However, the court dismissed Gregg Cunningham, Darius Hardwick, and Christian Andzel from the action without prejudice due to lack of individual standing.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentEqual Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissStandingViewpoint DiscriminationUniversity ProtestsAnti-abortionPublic Forum
References
60
Showing 1-5 of 5 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