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. ADJ8252446
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

DANIEL MARTIN vs. CITY OF RICHMOND

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it challenged an interim order, not a final decision. The Board granted removal on its own motion to address the administrative law judge's finding that the defendant's utilization review (UR) suffered a material procedural defect. The WCAB rescinded the judge's decision, finding the UR was not procedurally defective, and determined the medical treatment dispute should be resolved through Independent Medical Review (IMR).

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewMaterial Procedural DefectIndependent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationRemoval on Board MotionDecision After RemovalFindings and OrderRequest for AuthorizationTreating Physician
References
7
Case No. ADJ350092 (LBO 0372531)
Regular
Apr 23, 2010

PATRICK FOOTE vs. MEDADENT BIOMEDICAL; SCIF INSURED SANTA ANA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Patrick Foote's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified and lacked proof of service, violating Labor Code sections 5902 and 5905. The Board noted that the applicant had ample opportunity to cure these defects but failed to do so. Even if the procedural defects were overlooked, the Board would have denied the petition based on the original administrative law judge's findings. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIndustrial InjuryPsycheUpper BackNeckHeadIn Pro PerUnverified Petition
References
1
Case No. ADJ7560893
Regular
May 20, 2013

ABRAHAM AVILA vs. C AND Y INVESTMENT, dba GIRL TALK CLOTHING, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning Abraham Avila. The WCAB noted that Avila's petition for reconsideration was not verified as required by statute, a defect that was pointed out by the WCJ but not cured by the applicant. Despite the procedural defect, the WCAB chose not to dismiss the petition and instead returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This action was taken to allow the WCJ to address the issues under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyLabor Code section 5902verification defectabuse of the workers' compensation systemCode of Civil Procedure section 473Petition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeGrant ReconsiderationRescind Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration bet. New Hampshire Insurance & Utilities Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted a petitioner's application to vacate an arbitration award. The underlying dispute arose from an accident involving a truck crane that injured Grady McClaney, an employee of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, who subsequently received workers' compensation benefits from the respondent carrier. McClaney settled a personal injury action against multiple parties for over $4 million, with Niagara Mohawk waiving its compensation lien as part of the settlement. Subsequently, the respondent initiated a loss transfer arbitration to recoup $50,000 in compensation benefits from the petitioner, Gallagher’s no-fault carrier, citing Insurance Law § 5105 (b) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1-a). The arbitration panel ruled in favor of the respondent, but the Supreme Court remanded the matter due to procedural defects. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirmed the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition, finding the panel's decision rational and the procedural defects non-prejudicial.

Arbitration AwardWorkers' CompensationLoss TransferNo-Fault InsuranceLien WaiverPersonal Injury SettlementAppellate ReviewProcedural DefectsInsurance LawCPLR 7511
References
2
Case No. 13-07-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2008

Corpus Christi Housing Authority v. Maria Lara

The Corpus Christi Housing Authority appealed the dismissal of its forcible detainer action against tenant Maria Lara. The housing authority terminated Lara's lease due to alleged criminal activity. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that the housing authority's notice of lease termination was defective as it failed to specify the judicial eviction procedure and the type of criminal activity, as mandated by federal regulations, and that this defect deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding that while the notice was indeed deficient, such defects are not jurisdictional and should lead to abatement of the action to allow the housing authority to cure the notice, rather than outright dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Forcible DetainerLease TerminationHousing AuthorityFederal RegulationsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsJurisdictionAbatementReversalRemand
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cuadrado

The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion under CPL 440.10, vacating an earlier conviction for first-degree assault, due to a perceived jurisdictionally defective waiver of indictment. The Appellate Division reversed this order, denying the defendant's motion and reinstating the original conviction and sentence. The majority held that CPL 440.10(2)(c) bars the defendant from raising an issue in a collateral attack that could have been reviewed on direct appeal, even if it concerns a jurisdictional defect. The court rejected the argument that applying this statutory bar in such a case would be unconstitutional. The dissenting opinion argued that the conviction was void ab initio because the waiver of indictment violated CPL 195.10(2)(b), asserting that such a fundamental jurisdictional defect cannot be procedurally waived.

Criminal ProcedureCPL 440.10Waiver of IndictmentJurisdictional DefectCollateral AttackAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessSuperior Court InformationConstitutional RightsJudgment Vacatur
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. United States

The plaintiff, Boyd Richard Brewer, Sr., a self-proclaimed tax protestor, initiated litigation against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to regain properties seized and sold due to his failure to file tax returns from 1980-1982 and 1984-1987. Rather than challenging his tax liability, Brewer focused on alleged procedural defects in the IRS's assessment and collection methods. The court denied Brewer's motion for a preliminary injunction, citing the Anti-Injunction Act and the availability of other legal remedies. Furthermore, the court largely granted the government's motions for summary judgment, dismissing most of Brewer's procedural challenges, including those related to notices, statute of limitations, and delegation of authority. However, the court reserved its decision on specific claims regarding the IRS's compliance with assessment procedures and the precise dates of title transfer for certain properties, ordering the government to provide further documentation.

Tax Protestor LitigationIRS Collection ProceduresAnti-Injunction ActQuiet Title ActionNotice of DeficiencyTax Assessment ValiditySummary Judgment StandardProcedural IrregularitiesStatute of Limitations (Tax)Paperwork Reduction Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. ADJ4274323 (ANA 0387677), ADJ1601669 (ANA 0388466)
Significant
Feb 27, 2014

Jose Dubon, Applicant vs. World Restoration, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that disputes over the timeliness and procedural compliance of utilization review (UR) are legal issues for the WCAB to decide, not matters for independent medical review (IMR). A UR decision is invalid if it has material procedural defects, such as failing to review adequate medical records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewProcedural DefectsMedical NecessityEn Banc DecisionAdministrative Director's RulesSubstantial Medical EvidenceTimelinessMaterial Procedural Defects
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,403 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