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

In re Butcher

This case addresses three handicapped petitions seeking tuition and maintenance costs at the Summit Residential Treatment Facility under sections 232 and 234 of the Family Court Act. Judge Rudolph Di Blasi found all petitioners qualified for benefits. The court affirmed that tuition costs are reimbursable without parental means testing, but maintenance costs are subject to parental ability to pay. Crucially, the court asserted its discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of charges by service providers, rejecting the City of New York's argument that it must pay inflated costs. The decision detailed inflated administrative costs at Summit and deemed certain staffing ratios an unnecessary luxury at public expense. The court subsequently ordered specific, adjusted amounts for tuition and maintenance for each petitioner, directing the City of New York as the initial payor and the State of New York for partial reimbursement.

Family Court ActHandicapped ChildrenTuition ReimbursementMaintenance CostsParental ContributionJudicial DiscretionReasonableness of ChargesPublic FundsSummit Residential Treatment CenterEducational Costs
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Commitment of Star A.

This dissenting opinion addresses a petition to terminate a respondent mother's parental rights, brought on grounds of permanent neglect and mental illness, though the agency proceeded solely on permanent neglect. The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding the agency failed to make diligent efforts. The dissenting judge argues that the Family Court's decision should be reversed, asserting the agency's efforts were reasonable given the mother's extreme non-cooperation. The mother consistently failed to maintain contact, plan for her children, attend scheduled visits, and keep psychiatric appointments, frustrating the agency's attempts to strengthen the parental relationship. The judge concludes that terminating parental rights is necessary for the children's best interests and their chance at a normal childhood.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsSocial Services LawBest Interests of ChildFoster CareParental Non-CooperationFamily Court DecisionAppellate DissentChild Welfare
References
2
Case No. SFO 0458693
Regular
Mar 12, 2007

EdUARDO ABAD vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Eduardo Abad's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed well beyond the mandatory 20-day (or 25-day by mail) jurisdictional deadline. Abad's petition, though styled as reconsideration, appeared to be an attempt to re-open his case, which would require initial consideration at the trial level. Because the petition was untimely and jurisdictionally barred, it was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderFindings Award and Opinionindustrial injuryback injuryleft knee injurytemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityfurther medical treatment
References
2
Case No. ADJ141203 (RIV 0057393)
Regular
Oct 15, 2009

MARY ROBERTS vs. PATTERSON MANAGEMENT GROUP, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant and hearing representative sought reconsideration of the Findings and Orders Re: Sanctions. The petition for reconsideration is denied, and the petition for removal is dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatterson Management GroupPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyFindings and Orders Re: SanctionsHearing RepresentativeLien ClaimantAttorney FeesSanctionsWCJDefense Counsel
References
2
Case No. ADJ8543293
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

KAREN GENOVESE vs. SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The defendant school district sought to remove a WCAB order that closed discovery. They argued the order was improper due to insufficient medical evidence and denial of due process. However, discovery was subsequently re-opened by the WCJ on May 6, 2015, after the Petition for Removal was filed. Therefore, the Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot because the issue of closing discovery had already been resolved.

Petition for RemovalDiscoveryWCJLabor Code 4663Labor Code 4061(i)Qualified Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical EvidenceDue ProcessMootMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ3299585
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

HERLINDA HERNANDEZ vs. S.K. TEXTILES, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANIES, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order as defined by law, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision. The Board also denied a petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying it. The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, clarified that the orders did not allow re-litigation of already decided issues. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for reconsideration and denied for removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory proceduralevidentiary decisionscumulative trauma
References
6
Case No. ADJ3601217 (VNO0423469) ADJ4395518 (VNO0423468) ADJ736425 (VNO0435581) ADJ278535 (VNO0465332)
Regular
Jun 04, 2009

KAREN L. MORAN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/PROBATION DEPARTMENT

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal regarding duplicate orders compelling attendance at a defense QME. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as the orders were not final. Treating the petition as one for removal, the Board denied it, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the judges' report, which explained that discovery remained open due to the applicant's agreement to go off calendar for settlement negotiations.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Examination (QME)Mandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)Final OrderSubstantive RightsAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
5
Case No. ADJ8595235
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

Thomas Carroll vs. Lehigh Hanson Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's initial petition for removal as procedurally improper, as it challenged a notice of intent rather than a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's supplemental petition for removal, which sought to overturn the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order closing discovery. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying the supplemental petition, especially since the WCJ left open the possibility of allowing the deposition after trial. A dissenting commissioner argued that the deposition of Dr. Dell was necessary to update his opinion and ensure a complete record for apportionment, similar to Dr. Russell's deposition.

Petition for RemovalNotice of IntentionQuash DepositionPQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureSupplemental PetitionDr. DellDr. RussellSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Darren H.

Respondent Darren was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed with the New York State Division for Youth (DFY) in 1974. He was paroled to his mother in October 1975. In February 1976, DFY filed a petition for a 12-month extension of his placement, citing the benefit of continued services. Although the petition was timely filed, a clerical error delayed its placement before the court until March 11, 1976, after the original placement's termination date of February 28, 1976. Darren's Law Guardian argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to this delay. The court distinguished the case from precedents involving deprivation of liberty for confined juveniles, noting Darren was on parole and did not object to the extension. The court granted the petition, extending placement for 12 months nunc pro tunc February 28, 1976, asserting that neither the petitioner nor the respondent should be penalized for clerical errors, especially when no liberty deprivation for a confined juvenile was at stake.

Juvenile DelinquencyExtension of PlacementNunc Pro TuncClerical ErrorFamily Court ActDue ProcessParole StatusLiberty DeprivationJurisdictionAftercare Services
References
7
Case No. ADJ9843524
Regular
Dec 13, 2017

THEODORE MEREDITH vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION, ESIS, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Theodore Meredith's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed significantly past the jurisdictional 25-day deadline following service of the WCJ's order. Despite the dismissal, the Board noted the petition might indicate a desire to re-initiate the claim. They returned the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to determine if the petition effectively sought to re-initiate the claim, subject to statute of limitations. The WCJ will develop the record and applicant may file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelyjurisdictionaldismissedstatute of limitationsLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJre-initiate claim
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 15,952 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