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. ADJ8664704
Regular
Sep 02, 2013

SYLVIA THOMAS vs. TARZANA TREATMENT CENTERS, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order that took the case off calendar. The Appeals Board agreed that the June 18, 2013 hearing was a priority conference and should not have been removed from the calendar without further proceedings. The case is now returned to the trial level to be rescheduled for a priority conference and subsequent trial once discovery is complete.

Petition for RemovalOrder RescindedReturned to Trial LevelPriority ConferenceOff CalendarDiscovery CompleteWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and RecommendationPermissibly Self-InsuredAdminSure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. ADJ8041070
Regular
Aug 20, 2014

JUANA MONROY vs. GATE GOURMET INC., TRAVELERS, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied Travelers' Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse an order taking the case off calendar. The Board found that placing the matter off calendar would not cause substantial prejudice to Travelers. However, due to a genuine issue regarding injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), the Board ordered bifurcation of that issue. The case will be reset for a priority conference, and if the AOE/COE issue is not resolved, it will proceed to trial on that specific matter.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderAOE-COEBifurcationAgreed Medical EvaluatorWCJ Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmPriority Conference CalendarPretrial Conference Statement
References
0
Case No. ADJ10297312
Regular
Aug 10, 2016

ARACELI SAENZ DIAZ vs. MICHAEL'S STORES, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The defendant sought removal of an order setting a Priority Conference, arguing it denied due process and would cause prejudice. The defendant contended the conference was premature as they had denied the claim and were awaiting a QME evaluation. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) discovered the Priority Conference had already occurred and a trial date was set. Consequently, the WCAB dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal as moot.

Petition for RemovalPriority ConferenceAOE/COEQME panelLabor Code section 4060due processdiscoverymootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
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. ADJ7166891
Regular
Oct 31, 2013

NORMA MENDEZ MUNOZ vs. APPLIED POLYTECH SYSTEMS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's order dismissing a lien claim. The dismissal was based on the lien claimant's failure to pay a lien activation fee for a conference that was improperly added to the calendar. The WCAB found the conference was not properly set under Court Administrator Rule 10250 because no Declaration of Readiness to Proceed had been filed for that specific case, and the defendant's request for consolidation lacked necessary declarations. Therefore, the WCAB vacated the dismissal and ordered the matter off calendar, requiring a proper Declaration of Readiness to be filed to set the lien conference.

Lien activation feeReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedCourt Administrator Rule 10250EDEXEAMSWCJLien conferenceEx parte request
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. 91-CV-324; 92-CV-569
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Boening Bros.

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund sought to audit the payroll records of contributing employers Boening Brothers, Inc. and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. The employers refused, arguing they were not explicitly bound by audit provisions. The Court ruled that by contributing to the multiemployer plan under collective bargaining agreements, the employers implicitly assented to the Fund's governing documents, which include the right to audit. Citing precedents, the Court found the audit necessary to ensure proper contributions and plan integrity, upholding the Fund's right to audit all payroll records, including non-bargaining unit employees. However, the Court denied the Fund's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of bad faith by the defendants and the unsettled nature of the legal issue at the time.

ERISAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanPayroll AuditCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsPlan AdministrationFiduciary Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1995

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Fratto Curbing Co.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund seeking a default judgment against Fratto Curbing Co., Inc. for delinquent pension fund contributions. Fratto failed to respond to the complaint after being served, leading to an entry of default by the Clerk of the Court. The court granted the Teamsters' motion for default judgment, finding Fratto liable for delinquent contributions, audit fees, interest, and attorney's fees. The decision also clarified the calculation of liquidated damages under ERISA, stating that the fund is entitled to the greater of double interest or the plan's liquidated damages, but not both, thus reducing the total award. The final judgment was entered against Fratto in the amount of $5,687.23, along with post-judgment interest.

ERISAPension ContributionsDefault JudgmentDelinquent PaymentsCollective BargainingEmployee BenefitsLiquidated Damages CalculationAttorney's FeesFederal CourtContractual Obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,405 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