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. ADJ360272 (LAO 0753159)
Regular
Dec 02, 2011

RAMON ARMIENTA vs. MERTZ/DEL AMO MOBILE PARK, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BROADSPIRE, A CRAWFORD COMPANY, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the defendant challenges the WCJ's award of lien claims for medical services. The defendant argues that the lien claimants failed to meet their burden of proof to establish the reasonableness of their fees, as required by law. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the WCJ erred by not requiring the lien claimants to prove the reasonableness of their charges. Consequently, the case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the lien claimants' claims.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSuperior National Insurance CompanyLiquidationMertz Del Amo Mobile Home ParkRamon ArmientaLien claimantsReasonableness of feesBurden of proofTapia v. Skill Master Staffing
References
5
Case No. ADJ3564079 (SDO 0254307)
Regular
Sep 07, 2011

RAUL PEREZ vs. USA WASTE SERVICES, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Langlink Interpreters, Inc. (LC) regarding their $\$5,175$ lien for interpreter services. The original judge disallowed the lien, citing lack of proof of necessity, availability of bilingual staff, and pre-authorization. The Board rescinded the original order, returning the case for further proceedings, and established that employers must provide reasonably required interpreter services under Labor Code section 4600. LC now bears the burden to prove services were reasonably required, provided, qualified, and reasonably priced, as per the *Guitron* decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardlien claimantinterpreter servicesmedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600burden of proofreasonably requiredstipulated Awardpermanent disabilityindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ1448881 (VNO 0460995)
Regular
Sep 06, 2017

CLEMENTE MEJIA vs. PACIFIC MAT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision disallowing the balance of a lien for medical treatment provided by Dr. Arroyo. The administrative law judge found Dr. Arroyo failed to prove the reasonableness of services beyond progress and permanent and stationary reports, and that he was adequately compensated for reasonable services. The WCAB held that Labor Code section 4600(b), requiring medical treatment to be consistent with the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) to be considered reasonably required, applied retrospectively to all open cases, including this one. Therefore, the original decision disallowing the remaining portion of the lien was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderMedical treatment lienIndustrial injuryCumulative periodPermanent disabilityReasonableness of services
References
1
Case No. ADJ6884625
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

JASON PETERSON, KIRSTIE MCCRAINE-PETERSON vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the death of Jason Peterson, a correctional officer, from a pulmonary embolism after injuring his calf in a kickboxing class. The applicant, his widow, claimed the injury and death were work-related, arguing the kickboxing class was a reasonable expectancy of employment due to a general fitness requirement and incentive program. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the claim barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) because the decedent's belief that kickboxing was required was not objectively reasonable, as mere general assertions of fitness expectations are insufficient. Commissioner Brass dissented, believing the decedent's participation was both subjectively and objectively reasonable given its likely benefit to his job performance as a correctional officer.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Pulmonary EmbolismCorrectional OfficerKickboxingOff-duty Recreational ActivityReasonable Expectancy of EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjective ReasonablenessEzzy testCity of Stockton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jenneiahn)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. SBA 0085364
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

EMILY CLAUSEN vs. INAMED CORPORATION, GENERAL INSURANCE (SAFECO)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found the trial judge's decision lacked the required explanation of its reasoning and reliance on evidence, failing to meet legal standards for clarity and justification. The matter will be returned to ensure a properly reasoned decision that addresses all relevant legal requirements, including apportionment.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardRescindedLabor Code section 4663ApportionmentFibromyalgiaPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityOpinion on DecisionReport on Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. 8697 101239/16
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2019

Matter of Washington v. Olatoye

The Appellate Division, First Department, vacated a Supreme Court judgment that upheld a NYCHA determination requiring tenant Lerone Washington to remove his dog. The court found that the Supreme Court should have transferred the CPLR article 78 petition for de novo review, as it involved substantial evidence issues. The matter was remanded to NYCHA because the hearing officer failed to consider Washington's request for a reasonable accommodation to register his English bulldog as an emotional support animal. Washington, diagnosed with schizophrenia, anxiety, and depression, provided medical documentation supporting his need for the dog. The Appellate Division emphasized the requirement for an individualized assessment of direct threat and reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Amendments Act.

Emotional Support AnimalReasonable AccommodationFair Housing Amendments ActCPLR Article 78Direct Threat ExemptionNYCHADog Bite IncidentMental Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acosta v. Local 101, Transp. Workers Union of Am. Afl-Cio

The Secretary of Labor initiated a lawsuit under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) against Local 101, Transport Workers Union, challenging the disqualification of union member Baron Marquis as a presidential candidate. Marquis was disqualified for failing to timely submit a letter of acceptance, a requirement for candidacy. The Secretary alleged that while the rule was facially reasonable, its application was unreasonable and not uniformly imposed, thereby denying members democratic choice. The court ruled that the letter of acceptance rule was a reasonable qualification uniformly imposed, and that making exceptions based on subjective awareness would violate the LMRDA's uniformity requirement. Consequently, the court granted Local 101's motion for summary judgment and denied the Secretary of Labor's cross-motion.

Union ElectionsLMRDACandidate DisqualificationSummary JudgmentLabor LawElection RulesReasonable QualificationUniformly ImposedProcedural ComplianceDemocratic Principles
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1981

Rondinelli v. Corapi

Plaintiff George Rondinelli, a member and Chairman of Local 3, sued Local 101 and its president, Corapi, under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Rondinelli sought membership in Local 101, arguing he was denied his rights, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief to be admitted. His application followed his transfer to a new job at Brooklyn Union Gas Company that required him to work partly in Local 101's jurisdiction, and he aimed to challenge Corapi's leadership. Local 101 requested details about his job and reasoning for seeking membership, which Rondinelli refused to provide, claiming an automatic right to join. The court found that Local 101's inquiries were reasonable and in good faith due to the ambiguities of his job classification and existing union affiliation. Consequently, the court ruled that Rondinelli failed to meet membership requirements and dismissed his complaint, granting judgment to the defendants.

LMRDAUnion Membership RightsLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefCollective BargainingBargaining UnitUnion By-lawsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDistrict Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 8,835 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