Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. ADJ6861886

Regular

Feb 01, 2012

Tracy Huiras vs. Nestle USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration, disqualification, and removal concerning a WCJ's order compelling a claims adjuster to testify at a lien trial. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was not final. While the petition for disqualification was denied due to insufficient evidence of bias, the petition for removal was granted. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order compelling witness testimony, as the lien claimant bears the burden of proof and must produce their own witnesses.

WCABRemovalDisqualificationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJLien ClaimClaims AdjusterPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationPetition for Removal

References

Case No. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

The petitioner sought to compel arbitration in New York City concerning damages to goods shipped by the respondent from New York to Barcelona, Spain. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties which contained two conflicting arbitration clauses: one in Part I mandating arbitration in London, and another in Part II requiring arbitration in New York. The court, presided over by District Judge Motley, interpreted the contract, specifically a preamble stating that Part I provisions prevail over Part II in case of conflict, and also considered that the London clause was in the "typewritten" portion of the agreement, which typically holds precedence. Citing federal contract law and similar maritime contract cases, the court concluded that the London arbitration clause controls the location of arbitration. Consequently, the petition to compel arbitration in New York was denied, although no order was issued to compel arbitration in London as the respondent did not file a cross-petition.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review

References

Case No. ADJ7271031

Regular

Sep 21, 2012

THOMAS DACK vs. CEMEX, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after the WCJ denied their request to compel the applicant's attendance at a QME examination. The applicant's attorney's office had previously stated the applicant would not attend QME evaluations until litigation was resolved and attempted to strike a QME. The Appeals Board is giving notice of its intention to grant the defendant's petition and compel the applicant's attendance, unless the applicant shows good cause within ten days. The Board finds the defendant has presented a prima facie case for compelling the examination, noting a lack of formal objection from the applicant.

Petition to CompelPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2WCJPetition for RemovalApplicant objectionGood causeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial injury

References

Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358

Regular

Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859

References

Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 11, 1995

Petition of Home Ins. Co.

The Home Insurance Company (Home) filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. (Svedala) under the Federal Arbitration Act concerning disputed retrospective premiums. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause and that Home had previously invoked federal jurisdiction in a Wisconsin action. The court clarified that only the Southern District of New York could compel arbitration, as specified in the agreement. The court granted Home's petition, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the Retrospective Premium Agreement covered the dispute, and denied Svedala's cross-motion, thereby ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation PolicyMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsFirst-Filed RuleContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration ClauseBad Faith Claim

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fitzgerald & General Electric Co.

This case involves a petition to compel arbitration stemming from a dispute where the respondent opted to subcontract janitorial services instead of using its own employees, a decision challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in their collective bargaining agreement, specifically citing the 'Union Recognition' article. However, the court found that the dispute did not involve the interpretation or application of any agreement provision, noting that the subcontracting issue had been explicitly rejected during agreement negotiations. The court also clarified that Civil Practice Act section 1448-a, while precluding inquiry into the merits of a dispute, does not divest the court of its role to determine the scope of an arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the agreement itself stipulated that arbitration could only proceed after a court determined the arbitrability of issues, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingManagement PrerogativeArbitrabilityScope of Arbitration ClauseContract InterpretationUnion RecognitionCourt's Role in ArbitrationLabor Dispute

References

Case No. LBO 0297361

Regular

Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

The Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal challenging an order compelling the applicant's wife to attend a continued deposition. The pro se petition was dismissed as untimely and unverified, while the attorney's petition was dismissed because discovery orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding the wife waived her marital privilege by appearing and testifying, and cautioned parties about potential sanctions for their behavior.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition

References

Case No. ADJ9910901

Regular

Oct 04, 2019

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. WEST LAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for disqualification of a judge, finding no evidence of bias. The Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, as it was filed against a non-final procedural order. However, the Board granted the lien claimant's petition for removal and rescinded the judge's order compelling the lien claimant's representative to appear, due to procedural issues regarding potential sanctions. The matter was returned to the judge for further proceedings consistent with the Board's opinion.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation JudgeWCJ EdelbergMinute OrderAni BalianDebra Ketchens

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 26, 1982

Marion Coal Co. v. Marc Rich & Co. International, Ltd.

Marion Coal Company and Marc Rich and Co. International, Ltd. are embroiled in a dispute over whether they entered into an agreement to arbitrate a long-term steam coal supply contract. Marc Rich initiated a demand for arbitration, alleging a contract formed on February 11, 1981, and subsequently petitioned the court to compel arbitration. Marion denied the existence of a binding agreement and sought a temporary stay of arbitration, arguing that negotiations never concluded. The District Court found that material issues of fact exist regarding whether an arbitration clause was a customary condition in the coal trade and whether the parties agreed to such a term during an exchange of proposed contract drafts. Consequently, the court ordered a jury trial to resolve these factual questions, declining to grant either petition summarily.

Arbitration AgreementCoal Supply ContractTrade CustomUniform Commercial CodeContract FormationParol Evidence RuleFirm OfferJury Trial OrderedFactual DisputeNew York Law

References

Case No. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840

Regular

Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process

References

Showing 1-10 of 16,180 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

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

Case No. ADJ6861886

Regular

Feb 01, 2012

Tracy Huiras vs. Nestle USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

WCABRemovalDisqualificationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJLien ClaimClaims AdjusterPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationPetition for Removal

References

Case No. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review

References

Case No. ADJ7271031

Regular

Sep 21, 2012

THOMAS DACK vs. CEMEX, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

Petition to CompelPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2WCJPetition for RemovalApplicant objectionGood causeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial injury

References

Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358

Regular

Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859

References

Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 11, 1995

Petition of Home Ins. Co.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fitzgerald & General Electric Co.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingManagement PrerogativeArbitrabilityScope of Arbitration ClauseContract InterpretationUnion RecognitionCourt's Role in ArbitrationLabor Dispute

References

Case No. LBO 0297361

Regular

Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition

References

Case No. ADJ9910901

Regular

Oct 04, 2019

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. WEST LAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation JudgeWCJ EdelbergMinute OrderAni BalianDebra Ketchens

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 26, 1982

Marion Coal Co. v. Marc Rich & Co. International, Ltd.

Arbitration AgreementCoal Supply ContractTrade CustomUniform Commercial CodeContract FormationParol Evidence RuleFirm OfferJury Trial OrderedFactual DisputeNew York Law

References

Case No. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840

Regular

Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process

References

Showing 1-10 of 16,180 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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