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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ3139011 (WCK 0039676) ADJ3737138 (WCK 0039682) ADJ2116694 (WCK 0039685)
Regular
Dec 09, 2008

Diane Pearson vs. Gray C Home Care, Republic Indemnity Company of America

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original award and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for full determination of all deferred issues. The WCAB agreed that the applicant is totally permanently disabled and ordered a new final decision addressing all outstanding issues, including potential cardiovascular injuries and medical necessity of mobility equipment, to clarify all injured body parts and potentially issue a non-apportioned award. This decision aims to ensure all relevant evidence is considered before a final determination of the applicant's entitlement to benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLife PensionMedical NecessityDeep Vein ThrombosisStroke
References
0
Case No. ADJ686632 (LAO 0573956)
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

GARY TOBIA vs. LA PETITE BOULANGERIA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY \& SURETY COMPANY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the WCJ's August 18, 2016 order compelling discovery. The Board found the order to be overly broad and issued without a sufficient record to weigh discovery disputes. Furthermore, the relevance of the requested documents, particularly those dating back to the 1980s, was not adequately established, especially as the sole outstanding issue appears to be medical treatment. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify outstanding issues and create a proper record for any future discovery orders.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumWCJ OrderDiscovery DisputeClaims FileNon-Privileged RecordsEmployer's First Report of InjuryJob-Site PostingsMedical Treatment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Claim of Williams v. New York State Department of Transportation

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1988, initially received permanent partial disability benefits at a mild rate in May 1996. Dissatisfied with this assessment, the claimant appealed, presenting medical evidence suggesting a more severe disability. This led the Workers’ Compensation Board to restore the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record concerning the degree of disability post-May 6, 1996. Although two physicians testified, with one indicating a moderate disability and another a total disability, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately awarded benefits at a moderate partial disability rate. Upon the claimant's subsequent appeal, the Board ruled that the claimant was precluded from raising the issue of their degree of disability, citing regulatory provisions. The appellate court found that the Board had abused its discretion, as the issue was explicitly remanded by the Board previously, and the claimant was still aggrieved by the WCLJ's award despite an increase in benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorMedical EvidenceDegree of DisabilityRemittalNew York LawAdministrative Appeal
References
0
Case No. ADJ16728100; ADJ16728102
Regular
Oct 06, 2025

MARCO ORTIZ vs. AZTECA LANDSCAPE INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Cost petitioner, Tony Barriere Interpreting Service, Inc., sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on June 16, 2025. The petitioner contended that discovery issues were relevant and that the defendant engaged in bad faith by unreasonably delaying payment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's recommendation, finding that the defendant's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and that the underlying bill had been paid with a self-imposed penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderCost PetitionerTony Barriere Interpreting ServiceBad Faith ActionsUnreasonable DelayLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10545(h)Sanctions
References
9
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

Daniel Escamilla vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Daniel Escamilla's petitions seeking production of eleven sanction case files and clarification of issues. The WCAB found Mr. Escamilla already possessed or had access to the relevant documents and had adequate notice of the issues concerning his alleged misconduct. His objections to providing an offer of proof were deemed untimely and without merit. Consequently, the Board affirmed the existing procedures and denied his requests.

WCABDaniel Escamillasanction proceedingsoffer of proofpetition for removalLabor Code Section 4907suspensionremoval of privilegerepresentativemoral character
References
4
Case No. ADJ9052242
Regular
Dec 13, 2016

VALENTINO DOUGLAS vs. RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PIPS 10, Administered by KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Board rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Award because the applicability of the Labor Code § 5402(b) presumption of compensability could not be determined. Crucially, the record lacked evidence of when the claim form was filed, which is necessary to establish the 90-day period for denial and rebuttal. Furthermore, the presumption was not raised as an issue at trial, potentially violating due process. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to clarify these foundational issues and ensure all relevant medical evidence is considered by expert witnesses.

ADJ9052242Rialto Unified School DistrictValentino DouglasReconsiderationFindings and Award90-day presumptionLab. Code § 5402(b)RebuttalApplicant's credibilitySub-rosa videos
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 9,320 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