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. 2019 NY Slip Op 05367 [174 AD3d 1017]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Assn.)

The City of Plattsburgh, the appellant, appealed an order from the Supreme Court that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration with the Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Association. The dispute originated from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which stipulated a minimum staffing level of 36 firefighters and prohibited layoffs. When a firefighter retired, reducing the staff to 35, the City refused to fill the vacancy, citing financial reasons, leading the Firemen's Association to demand arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's application to stay arbitration and granted the Association's motion to compel. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the disputed CBA provision was a job security clause. The court found that this clause did not explicitly demonstrate the City's intent to waive its right to reduce staffing for budgetary or economic reasons, thus violating public policy and rendering the dispute non-arbitrable. A concurring opinion further noted that the clause also violated public policy due to its unreasonable duration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJob Security ClausePublic PolicyStaffing LevelsFirefighters UnionBudgetary ConstraintsAppellate DivisionCPLR Article 75Stay Arbitration
References
8
Case No. CV-23-1921
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2024

Matter of Giesselmann v. Rotterdam Steel, LLC

Claimant Brian Giesselmann appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board found Giesselmann violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his physical condition during a permanency evaluation for a right shoulder injury sustained in 2016. Despite his treating physician, Daniel Bowman, initially assessing a 70% schedule loss of use (SLU), video surveillance depicted Giesselmann performing activities inconsistent with his reported limitations. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board concluded that Giesselmann intentionally made material misrepresentations to influence his claim, imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties, including permanent disqualification from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, determining that substantial evidence supported the finding of a violation and the appropriateness of the permanent disqualification.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudMisrepresentationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Indemnity BenefitsMedical EvaluationClaimant CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionPermanent Disqualification
References
9
Case No. ADJ12674446
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

MICHAEL KREZA, SHANNA KREZA vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

Applicant Shanna Kreza, guardian ad Litem for deceased Michael Kreza, sought reconsideration or, alternatively, removal and disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) after the WCJ issued an Order Suspending Action. The WCJ's order questioned the requested attorney's fees as excessive, which the applicant argued created an appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the WCJ's order interlocutory. However, the Board granted the petitions for removal and disqualification, finding an appearance of bias by the WCJ due to unqualified opinions on attorney's fees. Consequently, the WCJ was disqualified, their May 12, 2025 Order was rescinded, and the case was returned for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFirefighterDeath ClaimAttorney FeesExcessive FeesPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasOrder Suspending Action
References
10
Case No. ADJ9709184
Regular
Mar 12, 2025

JOHN GUY vs. AV DECKING, AIG CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Disqualification against a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification based on an unqualified opinion or bias. After reviewing the WCJ's report, the Board determined that the petition did not provide sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish the grounds for disqualification as per Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Additionally, a Compromise and Release had been approved, rendering the petition moot. Consequently, the Petition for Disqualification was denied by the Board.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641affidavitdeclarationprejudicebiasunqualified opinionevidence
References
13
Case No. ADJ10678864
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

ALEX CASTILLO MASIS vs. EAST BAY FOODS INC, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Disqualification filed against a Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing an unqualified opinion or bias. Upon review of the record and the WCJ's report, the Board found the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations, declared under penalty of perjury, to establish disqualification. Although the WCJ suggested sanctions for false statements by applicant's attorney, the Board declined to impose them but admonished the attorney for not being candid and truthful. Therefore, the Petition for Disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960Judicial BiasPrejudgmentWCJ ReportSanctionsRule 10421False Declarations
References
8
Case No. 03-97-00055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1997

Brookshire Grocery Company v. Elton Bomer, as Permanent Receiver of Texas Employers Insurance Association

Brookshire Grocery Company challenged a judgment favoring Elton Bomer, Permanent Receiver of Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA). The trial court deemed a 'side agreement' between Brookshire and TEIA void, as it aimed to secure an illegal dividend for a workers' compensation policy, ordering Brookshire to pay $270,057. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the side agreement invalid, illegal, and void due to violations of statutory and regulatory requirements, including a failure to file with the State Board of Insurance and an attempt to retroactively alter premium factors to indirectly provide a prohibited dividend. The court further ruled the Receiver was not bound by the side agreement's terms and dismissed Brookshire's statute of limitations defense, asserting the cause of action accrued when the Receiver demanded payment in 1993. This decision underscores the necessity of regulatory adherence in insurance contracts and forbids agreements that bypass stipulated premium rates.

Insurance PolicySide AgreementRetroactive PremiumStatutory ViolationRegulatory ComplianceContract LawPublic PolicyStatute of LimitationsAppeals CourtTexas Law
References
9
Case No. ADJ319279 (MON 0358792) ADJ3055294 (MON 0361854)
Regular
May 24, 2013

TROY WHITETO vs. LONG BEACH TRANSIT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for disqualification of the judge, finding it untimely. Reconsideration was granted, and the original decision was affirmed with amendments. Specifically, Findings of Fact 6 and 7 were amended to reflect the agreed-upon permanent disability award based on Dr. Ganjianpour's report and to defer the issue of attorney's fees pending a WCJ order.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for DisqualificationDENYING PETITIONGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONuntimelyWCAB Rule 10452permanent disability awardmedical reportstipulated
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Lebron

This case involves an appeal concerning the permanent neglect of a child, Jason, placed in foster care in 1982 due to his parents' eviction and drug addiction. The Family Court found permanent neglect but dismissed the petitions, ruling the petitioner agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship. The appellate court affirmed the finding of permanent neglect, agreeing that the parents failed to plan for Jason's future or maintain regular contact. However, the court reversed the Family Court's finding on diligent efforts, concluding that the petitioner agency had, in fact, met its burden of proving diligent efforts despite the parents' chronic drug addiction and lack of cooperation. The court emphasized that an agency is not a guarantor of an uncooperative parent's success.

Permanent NeglectChild WelfareFoster CareParental RightsDiligent EffortsDrug AddictionRehabilitation ProgramsFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawParental Responsibility
References
9
Case No. ADJ7253924, ADJ6965468, ADJ6909770
Regular
Jan 01, 192014

SYLVIA SANTOS vs. GUARD MANAGEMENT, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sylvia Santos' Petition for Disqualification. This decision was based on the report of the administrative law judge, which the Board adopted and incorporated. The Board also refused to consider a document submitted by Santos as a "Reply to Report on Petition for Disqualification" because it did not comply with Board rules and would not have been accepted even if it had. Therefore, the petition for disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeRule 10848WCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureGuard ManagementInsurance Company of the WestADJ7253924ADJ6965468ADJ6909770
References
1
Case No. ADJ10715642
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

MISAEL RENTERIA vs. JUAN CARLOS RIVERA VAZQUEZ, DOG HOLDINGS, et al.

Defendant Shimin Xu filed multiple petitions for removal and disqualification, alleging bias against the WCJ and challenging a June 18, 2025 notice of hearing. The Appeals Board considered the allegations and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, which advised against disqualification and removal. The Board found that the defendant failed to provide a substantive affidavit for disqualification and did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm for removal. Consequently, the Board denied the petition for removal and dismissed the petition for disqualification, also admonishing the defendant regarding vexatious litigant proceedings.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJbiasLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641affidavitdeclarationsubstantial prejudice
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,903 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