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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1992

Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan

Plaintiff John A. Camardo, injured in 1983, sought disability pension benefits from the General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan after being declared a 'voluntary quit' by General Motors Corporation. The Plan denied his application for forms, leading to a lawsuit under ERISA. Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended denying the defendant's motions for dismissal and summary judgment and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. District Judge Arcara adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed the defendant's objections for procedural non-compliance, and ordered the Plan Administrator to provide the plaintiff with the necessary application forms for disability pension benefits.

ERISADisability PensionSummary Judgment MotionLocal Rule ViolationReport and RecommendationAdministrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Quit ClauseCollective BargainingEmployee Benefits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1995

Shain v. Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co.

Plaintiff Myron Shain brought a class action lawsuit against Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Company, alleging violations of federal securities law (Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933) and three pendent state law claims. Shain, a purchaser of Towers Notes, claimed Duff & Phelps indirectly solicited sales through 'Class Brokers' by providing false information regarding Towers Financial Corporation's creditworthiness and the safety of its securities. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Peck's recommendation, dismissing the federal securities law claims with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to allege direct solicitation by the defendant, which is a requirement for Section 12 liability under Pinter v. Dahl. The pendent state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing for potential pursuit in state court.

Securities FraudPonzi SchemeTowers Financial CorporationDuff & PhelpsSolicitationSection 12 LiabilitySecurities Act of 1933Pendent JurisdictionDismissal with PrejudiceDismissal without Prejudice
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 29, 2012

House v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Sheryl L. House sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability insurance benefits application. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that the Administrative Law Judge's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Plaintiff's similar motion. The District Judge adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, thus upholding the denial of disability benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician's RuleMedical-Vocational GuidelinesCredibility AssessmentPhysical ImpairmentsJudicial ReviewMotion for Judgment on Pleadings
References
54
Case No. ADJ6713503
Regular
May 16, 2014

MATTHEW JENSON vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by South Lake Medical Center and its associated entities. The Board also dismissed the successive Petition for Reconsideration filed by Accurate Medical Assessment Rating Center (AMARC). AMARC's prior petition was already denied, and successive petitions are not permitted, requiring review by the Court of Appeals instead. The Board adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation in support of these decisions.

WCABLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5813California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10561WCJSanctionsSuccessive PetitionOrder Denying Petitions for ReconsiderationWrit of Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ7073718
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

RECARD ON GONZALES vs. PHILIP SERVICES CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a typographical error in a prior award. The original decision found the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his right lower extremity, resulting in temporary disability and a 55% permanent disability rating after apportionment. The employer sought reconsideration, arguing for a lower rating based on a QME's opinion attributing 90% of the disability to non-industrial factors. The WCJ recommended amending the award to remove the erroneous reference to the QME's 90% apportionment and to simply state that 45% of the impairment existed prior to the industrial injury. The Board affirmed the substance of the original decision but amended Finding No. 10 as recommended.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATION GRANTEDDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONTRUCK DRIVERINDUSTRIAL INJURYRIGHT LOWER EXTREMITYTEMPORARY DISABILITYPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTLABOR CODE SECTION 4663
References
0
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

Anthony L. Jordan Health Corp. v. Axelrod

The Anthony L. Jordan Health Center, a not-for-profit corporation, challenged the New York State Department of Health's recalculation of its Medicaid reimbursement rates for the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 periods. Following an appeal, the parties entered into a stipulation agreement. However, the Department, while recalculating the rates in accordance with the stipulation, unilaterally changed the group composition, resulting in a significant negative adjustment and recoupment from Jordan. The court determined that this regrouping constituted an 'error of judgment,' not a permissible correction for mathematical error or an audit finding. Consequently, the court found that the Department did not have the right to retroactively adjust the rates based on this discretionary change. The petition was granted.

Medicaid ReimbursementRate RecalculationAdministrative ReviewStipulation AgreementError of JudgmentGroup CompositionRetroactive AdjustmentHealth Care LawJudicial ReviewDepartment of Health
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Goldman v. Williams

Plaintiff Goldman initiated a civil rights lawsuit alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, including false arrest, excessive force, unlawful search and seizure, and denial of medical care, against Montgomery County, Officer Brian Skero, and Trooper Charles Williams. These claims arose from her arrest for driving while intoxicated and subsequent detention. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting motions to dismiss for Montgomery County and motions for summary judgment for Officer Skero, while recommending a partial grant and partial denial for Trooper Williams' motions. The District Court subsequently adopted this Memorandum and Recommendation. Consequently, the only remaining claim in the action is Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Trooper Williams.

Civil RightsFalse ArrestExcessive ForceUnlawful SearchSeizureDue ProcessFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentQualified ImmunitySummary Judgment
References
72
Showing 1-10 of 3,432 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