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. ADJ7393061
Regular
Mar 02, 2012

JUAN PAZ vs. CONCORDE BATTERY CORPORATION, ALASKA NATIONAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding no injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment for Juan Paz. Paz claimed injury to his low back and psyche, but the judge found his testimony not credible and noted he did not report pain or seek medical treatment for his back during employment. Medical records indicated a spinal condition, but not necessarily an industrial injury, and the applicant's medical opinions were found conclusory and unsupported by the facts. The Board adopted the judge's report, emphasizing the great weight given to credibility findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJuan PazConcorde Battery CorporationAlaska NationalPetition for Reconsiderationdenialcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.injury AOE/COElow back
References
6
Case No. ADJ8969504
Regular
Sep 12, 2016

GLADYS PAZ, vs. TECH FLEX; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP

This case concerns the timeliness of a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services rendered to applicant Gladys Paz. The lien was filed on October 19, 2015, more than 18 months after the last date of service on December 23, 2013. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the lien is barred by the 18-month limitation period in Labor Code section 4903.5(a) for services provided on or after July 1, 2013. The Board found that the amended statute applied and lien claimant had a reasonable time to file within 18 months of their last service date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.5(a)Statute of LimitationsReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeContinuous ServicesEffective DateRetroactive Application
References
11
Case No. ADJ1143803 (OXN 0128653) ADJ2709854 (OXN 0142376)
Regular
Nov 01, 2011

SALVADOR PAZ vs. MARTINEZ PAINTING & WALL COVERING, MB PAINTING, CIGA, for CREDIT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE, CIGA for UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE USA

This case involves a painter, Salvador Paz, who sustained cumulative and specific injuries to his back, shoulder, wrist, neck, and foot. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied petitions for reconsideration from State Farm, CIGA, and the applicant. The Board upheld the original findings, which apportioned permanent disability at 72% to the specific injury (CIGA via Credit General) and 28% to the cumulative trauma (ACE USA and State Farm). Liability for temporary disability was also divided, and State Farm's arguments regarding an unequal division and due process were rejected.

CIGAState Farmcumulative injuryspecific injuryapportionmenttemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityvocational expertPetition for ReconsiderationCredit General Insurance
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Transportation Communications Union

The plaintiff, George T. Lee, an employee of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), alleged that a co-employee, Mark Paz, committed assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and also brought a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim against LIRR for negligence. The central legal question addressed by the court was whether it could exercise pendent-party jurisdiction over Paz for the state-law claims, given that the FELA primarily imposes liability on the railroad employer and not on individual co-employees, and no other independent basis for federal jurisdiction over Paz existed. Relying on recent Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedents, the court concluded that FELA does not authorize pendent-party jurisdiction over additional parties like co-employees. Consequently, the court granted Paz's motion to dismiss the complaint against him due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while denying Paz's request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Pendent-party jurisdictionFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Subject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismissCo-employee liabilityState-law claimsAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressRule 12(b) dismissalRule 11 sanctions
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krawczyk v. Ehrenfeld

This case involves an appeal by Kanfer General Contracting, Inc., and a cross-appeal by Paz Mast Construction, Inc., from a Supreme Court order that denied their respective cross-motions for summary judgment. The initial action concerned personal injuries. Kanfer, a subcontractor, sought dismissal of a second third-party complaint and all cross claims against it. Paz Mast, the general contractor, pursued conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Roth Metal & Glass Works, Inc., the subcontractor employing the injured plaintiff. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, granting both Kanfer's and Paz Mast's cross-motions. The court reiterated that a general contractor, not supervising or controlling an injured subcontractor's employee's work, is entitled to full common-law indemnification from a negligent subcontractor.

Summary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationLabor LawPersonal InjurySubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ProcedureCross-MotionThird-Party ComplaintConstruction Site Accident
References
3
Case No. ADJ4030941
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

SALVADOR CERDA vs. CHARTER OAK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant school district's petition for reconsideration regarding applicant Salvador Cerda's medical treatment. The Board found that applicant's treatment with Dr. Paz was within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN), rendering moot any arguments about the adequacy of the MPN notices. While Dr. Paz was listed in the MPN at a Los Angeles address, the Board held that the MPN agreement did not restrict treatment to that specific location or Tax ID. Therefore, the WCJ's determination that applicant was entitled to treat outside the MPN due to notice deficiencies was not reconsidered, as the treatment was deemed within the network.

MPNAD Rule 9767.12Labor Code section 3550Medical Provider NetworkWCJPetition for ReconsiderationWellCompCFMCTax IDlien claimant
References
3
Case No. VNO 472954, VNO 472955
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

LUIS PAZ vs. WARNER BROS.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision that denied vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance. The WCAB found the prior decision lacked a proper evidentiary record as required by WCAB rules, specifically regarding the admission and listing of documents like the applicant's February 9, 2004 letter. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to establish a complete record before a new decision is made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceDelay RateIndustrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCumulative InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationRehabilitation UnitExpedited HearingMinutes of Hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2010

Paz v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendants-respondents' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. This judgment was unanimously affirmed. An appeal from a related order was dismissed as being subsumed within the appeal from the judgment. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) liability did not apply as the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, having chosen not to use a provided ladder. Additionally, the Labor Law § 200 claim was dismissed due to the defendants' lack of supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Finally, the Industrial Code provisions cited under Labor Law § 241 (6) were deemed inapplicable to the alleged facts of the case.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Sole Proximate CauseSafety DevicesSupervisory ControlIndustrial CodeScaffold SafetyAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. ADJ7944481
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

IGNACIO PAZ vs. BENIHANA, INC., ZURICH LOS ANGELES

In this workers' compensation case, multiple lien claimants' liens were dismissed for failure to pay the required activation fee or appear at a lien conference. Their attorney claimed they lacked notice of the conference, but evidence indicates their representative initiated the conference and was served with notice. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to consider sanctions against the attorney for filing a petition for reconsideration that appears indisputably without merit, potentially based on misrepresentation or failure to investigate facts. The Board intends to impose sanctions on the attorney for alleged bad faith actions under Labor Code Section 5813.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Declaration of ReadinessNotice of Hearinglien conferencepetition for reconsiderationbad faith actionfrivolous petitiondue process violation
References
1
Case No. ADJ2709854 (OXN 0142376) ADJ1143803 (OXN 0128653)
Regular
Mar 09, 2012

SALVADOR PAZ vs. ARM CONTRACTORS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order awarding applicant's attorney $8,018.30 in litigation costs. Defendant Ace American Insurance Company argued the attorney waived the claim and they were denied an opportunity to contest the costs. The Board found that while the attorney did not waive the claim, the defendant is entitled to due process. Therefore, the order awarding costs was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level for a hearing on the defendant's objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Order Re: CostsLienAttorney's LienLabor Code Section 5815Labor Code Section 5313Due ProcessIndustrial InjuriesCumulative Trauma
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 16 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