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. ADJ4503834 (VNO 0113665) ADJ3103605 (VNO 0113666) ADJ2309113 (VNO 0113667) ADJ2270309 (VNO 0113668)
Regular
May 18, 2009

MARIA GARCIA vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order suspending submission, and returned the case for further proceedings. The WCJ improperly suspended proceedings without statutory authority and failed to resolve issues including utilization review compliance under *Sandhagen*. The Board ordered the WCJ to first address *Sandhagen* issues and proper utilization review before any further medical record development.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrders Suspending Submissionsubstantial evidenceutilization reviewuntimelyunsignedpenaltyattorney's feesneglect and delay
References
2
Case No. ADJ6830729
Regular
Apr 21, 2010

ALFONSO ESCOBAR vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, GALLAGHER BASSETT RANCHO CUCAMONGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order suspending action was not a final order. However, the Board treated the filing as a Petition for Removal, granted it, and rescinded the judge's order suspending action. This action allows the matter to return to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the defendant's Petition to Compel Deposition. The WCJ's observation that the deponent should not be deposed again was clarified as merely an observation, not a binding ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Suspending ActionPetition to Compel DepositionProof of ServiceProof of NoticeDue ProcessAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFinal Order
References
1
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
15
Case No. ADJ3: (SBR 0316406) ADJ68:825 (SBR 0316740)
Regular
Sep 26, 2017

HELCIAS PUERTO vs. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF AMERICA

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal challenging prior Minute Orders. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, ruling that the Minute Orders were not final decisions but rather interlocutory procedural rulings. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board noted that proceedings are suspended until the applicant is found competent to participate, and that legal actions should be conducted by his appointed Guardian Ad Litem.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalGuardian Ad Litem and Trustee (GAL&T)CompetencyOff Calendar (OTOC)Final OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold Issue
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union of America

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) suspended employee Marvin Moses after he drove a bus with a suspended license. The appellant union, on behalf of Moses, filed a grievance asserting Moses was entitled to a determination whether his suspension was for cause, arguing his license suspension was in error and he was not properly notified. After the grievance procedure, the union demanded arbitration. The NYCTA commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable because it involved enforcing statutory obligations under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, finding that the broad arbitration provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement encompassed the dispute and that the arbitrability of such issues was for the arbitrator to determine.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureEmployment SuspensionVehicle and Traffic LawCPLR Article 75ArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howell v. County of Albany

A correction officer's General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were suspended by the Albany County Sheriff after he refused a light duty assignment following a workplace injury in September 2009. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging due process violations because the Hearing Officer supposedly refused to consider proof of post-traumatic stress disorder and relied on evidence outside the record. The Court determined that the petitioner was afforded due process, noting that a predetermination hearing was held where he presented witnesses and cross-examined the respondents'. The Court found no violation of procedural due process as the petitioner did not raise a genuine dispute regarding his PTSD diagnosis before the hearing. Ultimately, the Court confirmed the determination to suspend benefits and dismissed the petition.

Due ProcessGeneral Municipal Law 207-cLight Duty AssignmentDisability BenefitsCorrection OfficerAdministrative HearingProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation ClaimPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. LAO 0834414
Regular
Mar 03, 2008

NATASHA FANE vs. PRIME CLINICAL SYSTEMS, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Everest's petition for reconsideration, rescinded a prior order, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine contribution liability between Everest and Argonaut. Argonaut's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as it was not a final order, but its petition for removal was granted, rescinding an improperly issued joinder order and issuing a new order joining Argonaut as a party defendant. The Board clarified that contribution proceedings under Labor Code section 5500.5(e) can be initiated after a settlement and that Argonaut, having been notified, may not be bound by prior evidentiary records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNatasha FanePrime Clinical SystemsInc.Everest National InsuranceArgonaut Insurance CompanyContributionLabor Code section 5500.5(b)Labor Code section 5500.5(e)Compromise and Release
References
0
Case No. ADJ322417 (LAO0855230)
Regular
Oct 21, 2019

Miguel Hernandez vs. D.L. Bone & Sons, Inc., State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration of an administrative order suspending a lien claimant's Petition for Medical Information. The WCAB granted removal, finding the administrative law judge erred by issuing the order sua sponte without notice or hearing, violating due process. This procedural error caused irreparable harm and prejudice. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the order and returned the case to the trial level for proceedings consistent with due process.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Suspending ActionPetition for Medical InformationFranchise Tax Board (FTB) suspended corporationDue ProcessSua SponteNotice and HearingInterlocutory Order
References
11
Case No. ADJ3502038 (VNO 0531200) ADJ3850322 (VNO 0531201)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

MARIA DE LA LUZ PADILLA vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award (S&A) regarding applicant's neck, shoulder, and chest injuries. The defendant claimed mutual mistake and delays by applicant's attorney as grounds to set aside the S&A. However, the WCAB found these allegations insufficient to overturn the executed contract. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's separate petition to set aside the S&A, due to apparent procedural irregularities.

Stipulations and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseDelay in ApprovalService of DocumentEthical BreachesTrial Level ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Choi v. State

The petitioner, a physician, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the Commissioner of Education to suspend his medical license. The charges of professional misconduct stemmed from prior findings by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Department of Health (DOH) regarding unacceptable patient care, inappropriate treatment, excessive testing, and operating a clinical laboratory without a permit. The Regents Review Committee, utilizing an expedited procedure, found the petitioner guilty of two specifications based on the DSS determination and recommended a two-year license suspension, with a partial stay and probation. The court affirmed the Commissioner's determination and dismissed the petition, rejecting the petitioner's arguments against the application of collateral estoppel, the propriety of the expedited procedure, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the preceding administrative hearings. The court also upheld the penalty imposed, deeming it not excessive or an abuse of discretion.

Professional MisconductPhysician License SuspensionCPLR Article 78Collateral EstoppelExpedited ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselDepartment of Social ServicesDepartment of HealthAdministrative LawProfessional Regulation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 18,275 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