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. ADJ8449286
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

DAVID SIRES vs. CONQUIP, INC., SENTRY SELECT

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, specifically challenging the attorney's fee amount. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a procedural defect: the applicant's attorney failed to provide proof of notice to the applicant regarding the requested fee increase, as required by WCAB Rule 10778. The Board issued a notice of intention to dismiss the fee request unless the attorney promptly provides this proof of notice. The Board has deferred judgment on other issues raised in the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney's FeeElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)WCAB Rule 10778Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT)Adverse Interest
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. ADJ3745700 (OXN 0128625) ADJ6812951
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

PAUL HARBER vs. PGP INC, CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, VARGAS EXCAVATING INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Paul Harber's petition for reconsideration to address a potential issue with its timeliness. While the petition was signed on November 7, 2011, there's a discrepancy between EAMS filing dates (November 7 and November 8). The Board is issuing a notice of intention to dismiss unless Harber provides proof of timely filing on or before November 7, 2011. Failure to provide this proof will result in dismissal of the petition as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderWCJEAMSFiling DateTimelinessNotice of Intention to DismissBatch IDOliver v. Structural Services
References
3
Case No. ADJ2212288
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

GUILLERMO GOMEZ vs. BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimants seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration because the case file lacked proof of service for the notice of the lien trial. The Board has ordered the defendant to provide proof of service within 15 days. This action is intended to allow for a proper review of the facts and law regarding the dismissed liens.

Lien Claim DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceMinutes of HearingLien TrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJBrinderson ConstructorsTravelers InsuranceWestside Health-Chiropractic
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jensen v. City of Saratoga Springs

This case is an appeal regarding the denial of an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner was injured in a fall on ice and snow in Saratoga Springs and sought to file a late claim against the city. The Supreme Court denied the application, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The court found no abuse of discretion, citing the attorney's mistaken assumption of liability, lack of proof of petitioner's incapacitation, and the city's insufficient actual notice of the claim due to a vague location description. Therefore, the order denying the application was affirmed.

Late notice of claimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eAbuse of discretionActual knowledge requirementLaw office failureIncapacitation defenseSidewalk fall liabilityMunicipal negligencePersonal injurySufficiency of notice
References
11
Case No. ADJ7122712, ADJ7122713
Regular
Dec 18, 2013

OFELIA INIGUEZ vs. FOSTER FARMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release agreement for $25,000, which awarded applicant's attorney a 15% fee instead of the requested 20%. The Board found the attorney's petition for reconsideration to be frivolous and meritless, lacking proper legal justification for an increased fee. Furthermore, the attorney failed to comply with procedural rules, including not providing proof of notice to her client regarding adverse interests and improperly attaching exhibits. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the attorney for bad faith actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeeCompromise and Release AgreementAdequacy HearingSanctionLabor Code section 5813Policy and Procedure ManualQuantum MeruitAdverse Interest Notice
References
0
Case No. ADJ10642409
Regular
Feb 23, 2018

Santos Rubalcaba vs. Beautiful Church/Rowland Heights Korean Baptist Church, GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company

The applicant sustained an industrial hand and skin injury. The defendant's attorney misrepresented proof of service of a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case by falsely claiming it was served on the applicant. The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion and issued a notice of intent to impose sanctions up to $2,500 against the defendant's attorney and insurer for their frivolous and misleading conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DismissalNotice of Intention to Dismiss CaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceService of NOIMaterial MisrepresentationFrivolous ConductLabor Code section 5813
References
0
Case No. 2020-07-0618
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

James Ernstes v. Printpack, Inc.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a compensation appeal involving James Ernstes, who alleged work-related hearing loss, and his employer, Printpack, Inc. The employer contested the claim, citing a notice defense and seeking to re-open proof based on newly discovered information about the employee's subsequent employment. The trial court had initially found the claim compensable, ruling that Ernstes provided timely notice of his injury, and denied the employer's post-trial motion. On appeal, the Board affirmed the trial court's finding regarding timely notice but reversed the denial of the employer's motion to re-open proof. Consequently, the Board vacated the award of benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings to investigate whether the employee's subsequent employment impacted his hearing loss claim.

Hearing LossOccupational ExposureGradual InjuryTimely NoticeDiscovery RulePost-Hearing MotionAbuse of DiscretionLast Injurious Injury RuleCausation of InjuryPermanent Impairment
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07667
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2017

Matter of Osorio v. M & L Express, Inc.

Yerly Osorio filed a workers' compensation claim for head, neck, and back injuries from a July 2014 work accident. The employer acknowledged the work-related injuries. The core issue was whether the employer's workers' compensation policy was effectively canceled prior to the accident due to nonpayment, or if it remained in effect due to the carrier's failure to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found the carrier liable, ruling that there was insufficient proof of a nexus between the cancellation notice and its mailing. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's determination unsupported by substantial evidence, as the carrier had provided uncontroverted proof of proper certified mailing of the cancellation notice. Consequently, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNotice RequirementsNonpayment of PremiumsStrict ObservanceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewPolicy LiabilityMailing ProofCarrier Burden of Proof
References
7
Case No. ADJ4194347 (SRO 135724), ADJ8065537
Regular
Aug 20, 2012

JONATHAN GREEN vs. T.J. and DENI MARRONE, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney seeking an increased attorney's fee beyond what was awarded by the WCJ. The applicant's attorney is requesting a higher fee than the $11,819.24 total previously allowed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to provide the applicant's attorney an opportunity to comply with Rule 10778, which requires notice to the applicant of the attorney's adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. The Board will affirm the WCJ's decision unless proof of service, applicant's consent, or a verified explanation is provided within twenty days.

Petition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeeCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeNotice of IntentionRule 10778Adverse InterestIndependent CounselVerified Explanation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,761 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