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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. ADJ8217179
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

CYNTHIA BRUNNEMER vs. DFA OF CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

Applicant's attorney filed a petition that was initially miscaptioned as a "Petition for Disqualification," causing confusion for the Workers' Compensation Judge. The applicant later amended the petition to clarify it sought only an "automatic reassignment" (peremptory challenge) of the judge, not disqualification. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification portion and remanded the reassignment petition for determination by the presiding judge or a designee. The Board cautioned the attorney about the wasted time and resources due to the imprecise initial filing.

Petition for DisqualificationAutomatic ReassignmentWCJWCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Peremptory ChallengePresiding WCJReport and RecommendationLab. Code § 5311Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10452
References
5
Case No. ADJ1132003 (LBO 0329486)
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

NICOLE R. CHEATHAM vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, LOMA LINDA HOME CARE

The Appeals Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal to overturn an Order that denied its request for automatic reassignment of the case. The Board found that the Presiding Judge erred by denying reassignment based on a prior award issued by Judge Pusey in 2003, as Judge Pusey had not been assigned as the trial judge at that time. The Appeals Board granted the reassignment and ordered the expedited hearing be set before a judge other than Judge Pusey. This decision recognizes the defendant's statutory right to automatic reassignment when a new trial date is set before a judge who has not previously presided over a trial in the matter.

Petition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentOrder Denying PetitionExpedited HearingStipulations With Request for AwardCumulative Trauma InjuryPetition to Re-openDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code section 5310Cal. Code Regs.
References
1
Case No. ADJ7393344
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

CONNIE WHITTED vs. DHL ENTERPRISES LLC BRIGHT STAR HEALTH CARE, CHARTIS

This case concerns a petition initially filed as a "Petition for Disqualification and Reassignment," which was later amended to solely seek automatic reassignment of the judge under WCAB Rule 10453. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification aspect, attributing the confusion to the applicant's attorney's imprecise captioning. While the petition for automatic reassignment is remanded for determination by the presiding judge, the Board notes it was filed before a trial or expedited hearing, making its denial likely. The Board cautioned the attorney about wasted resources and the potential for future sanctions due to careless pleading.

WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452peremptory challengedisqualificationautomatic reassignmentpresiding judgePetition for Disqualificationamended petitionJudge Brigham JonesReport and Recommendation
References
6
Case No. ADJ7825518
Regular
Nov 05, 2013

MICHELLE WELLS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order changes the venue for Michelle Wells' case from the Eureka District Office to the Sacramento District Office. The transfer is necessary because the Presiding Judge in Eureka has recused herself and there are no other judges available there. The order also directs the Sacramento Presiding Judge to assign the case to a judge who has no prior working relationship with the applicant.

WCABLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyOrder Changing VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeRecusedAppeals Board Rule 10453Sacramento District OfficeAssignmentApplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ1407862 ADJ8053285
Regular
Jan 29, 2014

RAYMOND SCHAUER vs. WINDSOR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOL INSURANCE GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, venue is transferred from the Santa Rosa to the San Francisco District Office. This change is necessary because the assigned judge must recuse himself and the alternative judge has been disqualified. The San Francisco Presiding Judge will assign a new judge and schedule a lien conference. This order facilitates the continued proceedings for Applicant Raymond Schauer against Windsor Unified School District.

Venue changeRecusalJudge challengeAppeals Board Rule 10453Santa Rosa District OfficeSan Francisco District OfficePresiding JudgeLien conferencePermissibly Self-InsuredWindsor Unified School District
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. Hood

Patrick Hamilton, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1984 Orange County conviction for criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. Magistrate Judge Sharon E. Grubin recommended denial of the petition, and District Judge Sprizzo adopted this recommendation, dismissing the petition. Hamilton's claims included defective temporary assignment of the Family Court judge who presided over his trial, an excessive sentence, and ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The court found most claims procedurally barred due to Hamilton's failure to raise them in state courts or due to a lack of merit. Specifically, the court addressed and rejected the conflict of interest claims against counsel and affirmed the legality of the informant's evidence and the appropriate use of a de facto judge, stating that Hamilton's rights were not violated. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProcedural DefaultFourth AmendmentElectronic EavesdroppingDe Facto JudgeExcessive SentenceCriminal Sale of Controlled SubstanceCriminal Possession of Controlled SubstanceNew York Penal Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. ADJ3072125
Regular
Dec 08, 2017

STEPHANIE SEALS vs. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MANAGER, CHIRON CORPORATION, TRAVELERS

The applicant sought removal of Judge Lieberman, alleging she ignored prior orders regarding personnel records and showed bias. The WCJ acknowledged the applicant's concerns about potential impropriety due to frank settlement discussions where monetary sums were mentioned. The WCJ recommended reassignment to another judge and the Appeals Board granted the petition for removal. The case is returned to the presiding judge for assignment to a new WCJ.

Petition for RemovalJudge LiebermanJudge MillerPersonnel RecordsBias AllegationAppearance of ImproprietyWCJ RecommendationPanel QMECase AssignmentOakland WCAB
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,146 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