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. ADJ2759696 (VNO 0492027)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

WOON YOUNG PARK vs. FILM PAYMENT SERVICES, INC., CHARTIS INSURANCE

The Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's decision on the defendant's credit for overpaid temporary disability. The defendant is allowed credit for temporary disability payments made from March 26, 2009, to June 3, 2009, at the temporary disability rate. Further credit is granted for payments made from June 4, 2009, to December 7, 2009, at the permanent disability rate of $185.00 per week. The Board denied further credit due to insufficient evidence regarding post-AME report overpayments.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityCreditStipulated AwardAgreed Medical ExaminationPermanent and StationarySection 4909Abuse of DiscretionDue Process
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Perrin v. Builders Resource, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the reimbursement rate for home health aide services provided to a claimant by their sister. Initially, the carrier denied payment but was later directed to pay. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge set the reimbursement rate at $12 per hour for services starting in 2011, which the Board affirmed. The claimant appealed, solely challenging this rate. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the claimant was not an aggrieved party concerning the reimbursement rate, as the dispute was between the care provider (the sister) and the carrier. The court affirmed that the claimant received the care sought and could not raise issues on behalf of the care provider.

Workers' CompensationHome Health Aide ServicesReimbursement RateAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCare ProviderWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ProcedureNew York LawCarrier Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. ADJ3619852 (VNO 0395419)
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

JESSIE SHERROD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, a physician, claimed temporary total disability (TTD) for a period during which the employer provided long-term disability (LTD) payments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award. The Board found that while the employer is entitled to credit for LTD payments, the TTD indemnity due to the applicant must be calculated at the rate provided by Labor Code section 4661.5, which uses the rate in effect on the date of payment, not the rate at the time of injury. This decision ensures the applicant receives TTD at the statutorily current rate for the retroactive period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJessie SherrodCounty of Los AngelesPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and AwardTemporary Total Disability IndemnityLong Term DisabilityLabor Code section 4661.5Agreed Medical ExaminerAverage Weekly Earnings
References
0
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. 91 B 10891
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Financial News Network Inc.

This memorandum decision addresses motions by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, counsel for the debtor (Financial News Network, FNN) and the equipment lessors committee respectively, seeking payment of prepetition fees in FNN's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Gibson, Dunn sought payment through the assumption of an employment agreement at a premium rate, while Kramer, Levin sought compensation under Section 503(b) for substantial contribution. The court denied Gibson, Dunn's motion, ruling that professional compensation is governed by Sections 327-330 of the Bankruptcy Code, not Section 365, and rejected the "doctrine of necessity" in this context. Kramer, Levin's motion for prepetition fees was also denied, without prejudice, as the court deemed the determination of "substantial contribution" premature and best addressed at the conclusion of the case.

Chapter 11Bankruptcy LawPrepetition FeesCounsel FeesExecutory ContractProfessional CompensationDoctrine of NecessitySubstantial ContributionDebtor-in-possessionBankruptcy Code Section 365
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2012

Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA.

Justice Gische dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that arbitrators, not the court, should determine the enforceability of payment agreements containing arbitration clauses in workers' compensation cases. The dissent highlights that the payment agreements were not filed with the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB), an issue the insureds use to invalidate the arbitration provisions. Citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Supreme Court precedent, Gische, J. contends that challenges to the contract as a whole should be decided by arbitrators. Furthermore, the dissent disagrees with the majority's application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, asserting that California law does not prohibit arbitration in insurance disputes and that arbitration does not undermine filing requirements. The dissent critiques the Ceradyne decision as inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings on severability and arbitrability.

Arbitration ClausesArbitrabilityFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCalifornia Insurance CodeContract EnforceabilityGateway IssuesDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F. G. Compagni Construction Co. v. Ross

Petitioners appealed judgments that had annulled certain prevailing wage and supplement redeterminations and notices to withhold payment issued under Labor Law sections 220 and 220-b. They contended that the respondent failed to ascertain prevailing wages and supplements by investigating workers in the defined 'locality,' instead conducting county-wide surveys and using union wage rates without proving majority union membership. The court affirmed the vacatur of redeterminations, finding the respondent's methods deviated from statutory mandates and that 1978 amendments to Labor Law section 220 were not retroactive. However, the court modified the judgments by reversing the annulment of notices to withhold payment, ruling that petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial review on that matter.

Prevailing WageWage RedeterminationsLabor Law ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative ReviewRetroactivity of LawPublic Works ContractsUnion Wage ScalesLocality DefinitionExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
7
Case No. ADJ4334434 (RIV 0047774) ADJ1332571 (VNO 0485919)
Regular
Sep 02, 2010

TARIK JUSUFBEGOVIC vs. FIESTA FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, STATE COMP. INS. FUND

This case concerns retroactive temporary disability payments for an admitted industrial injury. The applicant argued for higher retroactive payments based on an increased average weekly earnings determination and Labor Code section 4661.5, which mandates payment rates in effect at the time of payment if made more than two years after the injury. The Board reversed the WCJ, ruling that section 4661.5 applies even if some prior payments were made, as long as the payments are for temporary disability and occur more than two years post-injury. Therefore, the award was amended to reflect the higher indemnity rate in effect at the time of the Board's decision. A dissenting opinion argued against this interpretation, favoring the WCJ's narrower application of the statute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly EarningsLabor Code Section 4661.5Hofmeister v. Workers' Comp. AppealsBd.Permanent DisabilityRetroactive Temporary DisabilityMaximum Rate
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,752 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