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

Claim of Green v. Kamalian

A decedent, hired by an employer to cut firewood, was killed by a falling tree. His widow, as administratrix of his estate, filed a wrongful death action against the employer, which resulted in a $65,000 settlement. Subsequently, the claimant sought death benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, citing a precedent that bars benefits after a successful negligence action settlement against the employer. The claimant appealed, arguing that prior cases negated this precedent by vesting primary jurisdiction in the Board, thereby rendering the Supreme Court settlement a nullity. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the rule of primary jurisdiction does not divest the Supreme Court of all jurisdiction in such matters and that the precedent remained binding. The court also rejected the claimant’s argument regarding a lack of identity of parties.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathExclusive RemedyPrimary JurisdictionRes JudicataEstate LawAppellate ReviewNew York LawBoard DecisionSettlement Bar
References
7
Case No. ADJ89 12546
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

CARLOS CASTRO, CARLOS CASTRO VICENTE vs. MURANAKA FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a lien claimant's copy service fees. The Appeals Board previously granted the lien claimant's petition, finding they were exempt from photocopier registration requirements. This exemption was based on precedent holding that such registration is not required when the lien claimant is an independent contractor of an attorney providing services related to medical-legal expenses. The defendant's petition was denied as the prior en banc decision remains binding precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantProfessional Photocopier RegistrationBusiness and Professions Code Section 22450Business and Professions Code Section 22451Medical-Legal ExpensesLabor Code Section 4620State Bar MemberIndependent ContractorCornejo v. Younique Café
References
2
Case No. ADJ7442309
Regular
Jun 19, 2015

SCOTTIE PIPPEN vs. PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS, HOUSTON ROCKETS, CHICAGO BULLS, TIG INSURANCE, CHUBB GROUP (FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Scottie Pippen's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that rescinded an award for cumulative trauma injury as a professional basketball player. The Board majority found California lacked a sufficient interest to adjudicate the claim, relying on the precedent of *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. Pippen argued this precedent was misapplied and that California had a legitimate interest in his claim. One member dissented, advocating for reinstatement of the original award.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCalifornia jurisdictioncumulative traumaindustrial injuryprofessional basketball playerFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)de minimisemployermedical treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ9163491; ADJ9163494
Regular
Jan 09, 2015

RIGOBERTO NORIEGA vs. BEST WESTERN TOWN & COUNTRY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal after the WCJ denied his objection to a QME's report. The applicant argued the QME report was untimely and prejudicial because it issued a zero impairment rating. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the applicant waived his objection by not requesting a replacement QME panel until after receiving the unfavorable report. The Board cited precedent preventing parties from waiting to see if a report is favorable before objecting to its timeliness. Commissioner Zalewski dissented, believing the applicant could object after receipt as long as the objection preceded the replacement panel request.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME reportuntimely filingservice of reportreplacement panelobjectionstatutory timeframesLabor CodeAdministrative Director Rule
References
3
Case No. ADJ6996303
Regular
Mar 23, 2023

JOHN DAVIES vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PROBATION DEPT., COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award of 84% permanent disability for a Probation Officer with heart/hypertension and hip injuries. The Board found that Labor Code section 3212.10's heart presumption and section 4663(e)'s non-attribution clause prohibit apportionment of the applicant's new and further disability. The defendant's contention that prior stipulations required apportionment was rejected, citing precedent that such presumptions take precedence. The Board clarified that the 84% represents the applicant's total permanent disability, not solely the new and further disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHeart PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.10Non-Attribution ClauseLabor Code Section 4663(e)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Charles A. Field Delivery Service, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order that affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's (UIAB) decision classifying a delivery service's drivers as independent contractors, exempting the service from unemployment insurance contributions. The Court found the UIAB's determination arbitrary and capricious for failing to adhere to its own prior precedents (Matter of Di Martino and Matter of Wells) or provide a rational explanation for reaching a different result on essentially similar facts. The case was remitted to the UIAB for further proceedings, requiring it to either conform to its precedent or justify its departure.

unemployment benefitsemployment lawadministrative reviewagency discretionjudicial precedentstatutory interpretationNew York lawemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractor statusdue process
References
14
Case No. ADJ2623740
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

MARTHA HERNANDEZ vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The Appeals Board rescinded its Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against CMS Network, Inc. and its representatives, Dominic D. Arguello and Randal Hollien. Initially, sanctions were considered due to repeated misstatements of law concerning a lien claimant's burden of proof in petitions for reconsideration. Although zealous advocacy is not an excuse for legal misstatements, the Board found no intent to mislead and acknowledged the respondents' understanding of correct legal precedent. The matter is returned to the trial level, with the Board emphasizing that lien claimants bear the burden of proving the reasonableness of their fees, citing precedent like *Kunz* and *Tapia*.

WCABRemovalSanctionsLien claimant burden of proofPetition for reconsiderationHearing representativesZealous advocacyMisstatements of lawEn banc decisionsBinding precedent
References
8
Case No. ADJ10344515; ADJ10344543
Regular
Sep 26, 2016

ROGER EUGENE HERBEL vs. EV PLUMBING, INC., THE HARTFORD

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision, which had authorized the applicant to obtain two separate Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels. The defendant argued this violated Labor Code section 4062.3(j) and prior Appeals Board precedent regarding multiple QME requests for related claims. The Board found the record insufficient for a merits decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to create a proper trial record. This decision emphasizes the need for a clear record and references precedent concerning QME panel entitlement for distinct but related industrial injury claims.

QME panelorthopedicchiropracticLabor Code section 4062.3(j)Navarro v. City of MontebelloPetition for ReconsiderationDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed to Expedited HearingMinutes of HearingOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ramadhan v. Morgans Hotel Group Management, LLC

The Board initially concluded that the claimant was not totally disabled despite a 100% schedule loss of use of both eyes, arguing he retained some vision. The claimant contended that he met the criteria for 'loss of both eyes' for total disability, referencing a previous Board decision (Max W. Fritzsch) where a claimant with some vision was deemed permanently totally disabled. The court concurred with the claimant, asserting that the Board was obligated to either adhere to its established precedent or provide a rationale for deviating from it. Therefore, the decision is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings, with instructions to either follow the Fritzsch precedent or provide an appropriate explanation for any departure.

Workers' CompensationTotal DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseVision ImpairmentLegal PrecedentStare DecisisRemittalBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewConsistency in Adjudication
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of De La Concha v. Fordham University

Claimant, a locksmith at Fordham University, was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim following an alleged physical altercation with the employer's director of human resources. The employer cited reasons including filing a false report for benefits, while the claimant alleged unlawful termination for filing the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found the employer's motivation was retaliatory, violating Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. On appeal, the employer challenged the Board's adherence to precedent and the substantial evidence for its decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the employer's cited precedents distinguishable and substantial evidence supported the finding of retaliatory discharge.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeWrongful TerminationEmployer RetaliationLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawBoard PrecedentWorkplace InjuryMedical Evidence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,050 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