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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 2020 NY Slip Op 00923 [180 AD3d 446]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

Jessica Denson, a former employee of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment, which led to the campaign initiating arbitration for alleged breaches of her non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement (NDA). The arbitrator issued awards against Denson for disclosing confidential information in a federal action challenging the NDA and for statements on social media. The Supreme Court affirmed these awards, but the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the judgment and vacated the arbitration awards. The appellate court ruled that penalizing Denson for statements made in a judicial proceeding violated strong public policy protecting freedom of expression in court. Furthermore, the arbitrator exceeded his authority by considering events that occurred after the initial demand for arbitration, making the entire award invalid.

Arbitration award vacaturNon-disclosure agreement (NDA)Non-disparagement agreementPublic policyArbitrator authorityJudicial privilegeAppellate reviewEmployment disputeSex discriminationHostile work environment
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Orange v. Village of Kiryas Joel

The County of Orange challenged environmental determinations by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel regarding the construction of a public water supply facility and pipeline. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, annulled the determinations, and remitted the matter for a supplemental environmental impact statement. The appellate court modified the judgment, directing the preparation of an amended final environmental impact statement instead of a supplemental one, specifically requiring analysis of wetlands, sewage, wastewater discharge, a phase 1-B archaeological study, and growth-inducing effects. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying the Village's motion to renew opposition to the petition, concluding that while deficiencies existed in the initial environmental review, the lead agency was not required to consider additional alternatives beyond those already identified. The case clarifies that an amended FEIS is appropriate for initial deficiencies, not an SEIS.

Environmental ReviewSEQRA ComplianceCPLR Article 78Wetlands ImpactWastewater DischargeArchaeological StudyGrowth-Inducing EffectsEnvironmental Impact StatementAmended FEISJudicial Discretion
References
19
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 892
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

In the Matter of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corporation

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The initial motion for leave to appeal was previously denied, as referenced in 7 NY3d 922. Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, is the appellant. Judge Motor Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board are the respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on February 5, 2007, and rendered its decision on March 22, 2007.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealWorkers' CompensationEstateVoluntary Administrator
References
1
Case No. ADJ8873837
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

HUGO A. GARCIA ROJAS vs. SWEANEY PAINT & DRYWALL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant filed a petition for removal challenging the presiding judge's inaction on a venue change request and an expedited hearing. However, the presiding judge subsequently issued orders that addressed these issues by taking the hearing off calendar and transferring venue. Therefore, the defendant's petition for removal is moot and has been dismissed by the Appeals Board.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Change of VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation Judge (PWCJ)Expedited HearingOff CalendarTransferring VenueWCABMootDismissedBakersfield District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ2147971
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

JOEL DE LEON vs. BIG LOTS; SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal by applicant Joel De Leon against Big Lots and Sedgwick CMS. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and adopted the Judge's reasoning. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalDenial of RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionPre-trial Order
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,776 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