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
Jul 30, 2012

Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA.

Justice Gische dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that arbitrators, not the court, should determine the enforceability of payment agreements containing arbitration clauses in workers' compensation cases. The dissent highlights that the payment agreements were not filed with the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB), an issue the insureds use to invalidate the arbitration provisions. Citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Supreme Court precedent, Gische, J. contends that challenges to the contract as a whole should be decided by arbitrators. Furthermore, the dissent disagrees with the majority's application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, asserting that California law does not prohibit arbitration in insurance disputes and that arbitration does not undermine filing requirements. The dissent critiques the Ceradyne decision as inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings on severability and arbitrability.

Arbitration ClausesArbitrabilityFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCalifornia Insurance CodeContract EnforceabilityGateway IssuesDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milan v. Trico Products Corp.

A claimant who was totally incapacitated due to a work injury received regular wages for a holiday during their incapacitation period but no disability payment for that day. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award, refusing to credit the employer's holiday payment against the compensation award, asserting the payment was a private union-employer matter beyond its jurisdiction. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law section 25 (subd 4, par [a]), contending their oral request for setoff prior to the award satisfied the statutory filing requirements. While the court agreed the employer substantially complied with the filing requirements, it ultimately affirmed the denial of reimbursement. The court reasoned that there was no evidence the holiday payment was intended as a substitute for compensation payments, and claimants can receive both holiday pay and compensation benefits concurrently.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementHoliday PayOral ClaimEmployer LiabilitySetoffStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. ADJ6800163
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

MARIA BETENCOURT vs. MCKC ENTERPRISES, INC. dba CAROUSEL CHILD CARE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves a lien claimant, Long Beach Medical Center, whose lien was dismissed for failing to pay the required activation fee by the deadline. The lien claimant argued due process violations and that the fee was not supported by law. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the lien claimant stipulated to late payment, and Labor Code Section 4903.06(a)(4) mandatorily requires dismissal for non-payment or late payment of the fee before the conference.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Dismissal with PrejudiceEAMSDue ProcessEn Banc DecisionEliezer Figueroa v. B.C. Doering Co.
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re LaPlante

In this Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, debtor Bruce G. LaPlante, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration of a prior order that had dismissed his case. The dismissal was based on his failure to file payment advices as required by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(B)(iv). The court, presided over by Judge Carl L. Bucki, granted the motion for reconsideration and vacated the dismissal order. The judge determined that the statutory requirement to file payment advices applies only to income received from an employer, and since Mr. LaPlante's income derived solely from Social Security disability and Workers' Compensation benefits, neither of which are considered employer-based, the filing requirement was inapplicable. Consequently, the automatic dismissal provision under 11 U.S.C. § 521(i) could not be properly invoked against the debtor.

BankruptcyChapter 7Payment AdvicesDismissalReconsiderationStatutory InterpretationDebtorTrusteeSocial SecurityWorkers' Compensation
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02554 [182 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Xiaodong Lin v. McGhee

This appellate case involves a dispute between Xiaodong Lin (respondent) and David McGhee (appellant) concerning orders related to their child. The defendant father appealed several orders, including those prohibiting communication with the child except as deemed appropriate by the Wellspring Foundation, requiring him to pay 50% of treatment and education costs at Wellspring and Arch Bridge, limiting his parental access, and mandating payment for a supervised visitation social worker. The Appellate Division modified the February 10, 2017 order, deleting the provision requiring the father to pay 50% of the child's treatment and education costs, and remanded for a hearing to determine its warrantability due to a lack of showing of changed financial circumstances. All other orders, including those limiting parental access and requiring payment for supervised visitation, were affirmed. The court found the father's arguments regarding termination of parental rights, lack of evidentiary hearing, and maternal alienation unavailing.

Parental RightsChild CustodyParental AccessFinancial ContributionResidential TreatmentSpecial Education CostsSupervised VisitationAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEvidentiary Hearing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Minkoff v. Scranton Frocks, Inc.

The respondents moved to stay the petitioner from accepting monies from an arbitration award, claiming violations of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court noted that the petitioner's prior motion for confirmation of the award had already been decided, and the respondents' objection regarding payment violations was addressed in that separate opinion. While the respondents properly raised their objection in opposition to the confirmation, the court ruled that an application for affirmative relief under 29 U.S.C.A. § 186(e) requires a plenary suit with a preliminary injunction motion, not a motion within the confirmation proceeding. Consequently, the respondents' motion was denied due to improper procedure for seeking affirmative relief.

Arbitration awardLabor Management Relations Actinjunctionplenary suitmotion practicestatutory interpretationfederal jurisdictionprocedural errorarbitration confirmationstay of enforcement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Glass

The petitioner, a paternal grandmother, sought foster care payments for three children who had been in her custody since July 30, 1988, following their placement by the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS initially provided payments until July 29, 1988, but subsequently denied further funding, asserting that the foster care placement had automatically terminated. The court, in reviewing the Commissioner's determination, held that under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (Social Services Law § 374-a), DSS, as the sending agency, retained jurisdiction and financial responsibility for the children. The court found that the voluntary 'discharge' of the children to the grandmother was an insufficient basis to terminate DSS's ongoing supervisory and financial responsibilities. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination denying foster care payments was annulled, and the petition seeking such payments was granted.

Foster careInterstate CompactSocial Services LawCPLR article 78Judicial reviewAnnulmentChild custodyFinancial responsibilityAgency responsibilityNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1990

Claim of Mortenson v. United Parcel Service

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim on July 29, 1987, alleging a myocardial infarction from work performed on June 15, 1985. The claim was deemed untimely by the workers' compensation insurance carrier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which requires claims within two years of the accident unless an advance payment of compensation was made. The claimant argued that continued wage payments from his employer constituted such an advance payment. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that these payments were part of company policy, irrespective of the injury's cause, and thus did not qualify as an advance payment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that remuneration must be linked to an acknowledgment of liability under workers' compensation law to be considered an advance payment.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionTimeliness of ClaimAdvance PaymentWage ContinuanceEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. STK 0194292
Regular
Apr 02, 2008

HERIBERTO ZEPEDA vs. SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule applied to applicant Heriberto Zepeda's bilateral wrist and elbow injury. Applicant argued that prior industrial disability leave payments in 2004 triggered an exception requiring the 1997 schedule. The Board found these payments were for medical examinations and did not necessitate the notice required to trigger the exception, thus affirming the applicability of the 2005 schedule.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative trauma injuryPermanent and stationary2005 rating schedule1997 rating scheduleIndustrial disability leaveLabor Code section 4061Labor Code section 4660(d)Labor Code section 4600(a)(1)Temporary disability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,025 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