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. ADJ8497883
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

ANGEL ROBLES vs. UKANI ENTERPRISES INC. \& MIRMAR ENTERPRISES INC.; THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought to remove an order that placed the matter off calendar, arguing discovery should have closed and the case proceed to trial. The Appeals Board denied the petition, explaining that the administrative law judge correctly took the case off calendar because a pretrial conference statement was not filed, a requirement for proceeding to trial after a mandatory settlement conference. The Board noted that discovery closes at the mandatory settlement conference, and if the case is not resolved at the next one, a pretrial statement must be filed, and the case will then be continued to trial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosingPretrial Conference StatementLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Off Calendar OrderDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAdministrative Law JudgePermanent Disability Rating
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. ADJ8002481
Regular
Jun 05, 2012

MICHAEL GAMBILL vs. CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC., IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Gambill v. Construction Testing Services, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal. The Board found that defendant's attorney's late appearance at a Mandatory Settlement Conference was due to an inadvertent calendaring error, not a pattern of misconduct. Therefore, substantial justice warranted allowing the parties to revise their Pretrial Conference Statement before the scheduled trial. The Board's decision permits revised pretrial statements and allows the judge to take further appropriate action at trial, including potential continuances.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceMiscalendaringInadvertent ErrorSubstantial JusticeReimbursement of CostsPretrial Conference StatementDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ7074256
Regular
May 23, 2014

ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ vs. DANDEE TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over whether the applicant, Alfonso Rodriguez, adequately pursued medical evaluations before a mandatory settlement conference. The applicant sustained an injury in 2009 and has undergone evaluations by an Agreed Medical Evaluator and Qualified Medical Evaluators. However, at the settlement conference, the applicant claimed he still required treating physician reports in psychiatry and internal medicine, leading the trial judge to take the case off calendar. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding the applicant waived objections to proceeding by not objecting to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed or the QME panels. The Board rescinded the order and returned the case to the trial level for another settlement conference and potential trial, emphasizing the applicant's lack of diligence in discovery.

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderOff CalendarAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code section 4061(i)Due DiligenceDiscovery
References
3
Case No. ADJ1718273 (SFO 0464362)
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

MARIANNE WALSH vs. G.A. WRIGHT, INC., CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the record was complete for trial. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding the prior order to continue to a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) was premature. The Board rescinded that order and returned the case to the trial level for an MSC to file a Pretrial Conference Statement, as discovery had closed. The applicant must now attend MSCs and trial in person to facilitate these necessary procedural steps.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Discovery ClosureIndustrial InjuryOverexertion at high altitudeChest wall injuryLung injuryHeart injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ2829894 (SRO 0138997)
Regular
Apr 18, 2011

CAROL LYNN RANDALL vs. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that closed discovery and intended sanctions. This arose from defense counsel's claimed failure to receive notice of a mandatory settlement conference, preventing their appearance and due process. The Board allowed the defendant to file a pretrial conference statement, will allow a trial on the merits regarding indemnity payments, and will address sanctions separately. The trial date was continued to allow for these proceedings.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessSanctionsEAMSStipulation and AwardIndemnity PaymentsPretrial Conference StatementWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ3157778 (SBR 0342745)
Regular
Aug 26, 2011

Carrita Morales vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's untimely Petition for Removal due to its late filing. However, the WCAB granted removal on its own motion, citing significant procedural and record-keeping deficiencies. These included a lack of scanned documents in the EAMS system, applicant's waiver of objections to proceeding to trial, and the absence of a proper pretrial conference statement and exhibits. The case was rescinded from the WCJ's order and returned to the trial level for a Mandatory Settlement Conference and further proceedings to establish a complete record.

Petition for RemovalDismissalGranting RemovalOwn Motion RemovalDecision After RemovalWCJDiscovery ReopenedSleep ReportInsomniaPermanent and Stationary
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 2,314 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