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. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403)
Regular
Jan 16, 2013

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Brian Carrasco's petition for reconsideration as successive and untimely. Carrasco had previously filed a similar petition which was dismissed by the WCAB on October 4, 2012, and he failed to seek a writ of review from the Court of Appeal. The current petition, in addition to being a relitigation of dismissed issues, also violated court rules regarding formatting and length. The WCAB warned Carrasco that further attempts to relitigate these issues could result in him being declared a vexatious litigant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSuccessive PetitionVexatious LitigantCourt of AppealWrit of ReviewLabor Code Section 5950Final OrderPetition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5804
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engel v. Calgon Corp.

This is a dissenting opinion concerning the applicability of collateral estoppel to administrative determinations. The core issue revolves around whether a prior finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that an individual was an 'employee' should preclude the State Division of Human Rights from reaching a different conclusion regarding the same individual's employment status under a different statute. The dissenting judge argues that the issue of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor should be decided under the same general principles, regardless of whether it arises under Labor Law article 18 or Executive Law article 15. Therefore, it is asserted that the issues are identical for collateral estoppel purposes, and the party, Calgon, should be barred from relitigating the employment question. However, the majority confirmed the Division's determination and dismissed the petition, thereby rejecting the dissent's argument for the application of collateral estoppel in this context.

Collateral EstoppelRes JudicataIssue PreclusionAdministrative LawUnemployment InsuranceHuman Rights LawEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorJudicial DissentAgency Determinations
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08506 [133 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Vega v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Raul Vega, a laborer, was injured at a subway station reconstruction site when a coworker operating an excavator dropped concrete debris on him, resulting in a crushed left index finger. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, while defendants cross-moved to collaterally estop plaintiffs from relitigating an issue decided by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the defendants' cross-motion to collaterally estop the plaintiffs regarding complex regional pain syndrome, as this issue was previously decided by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court otherwise affirmed the denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claims, citing issues of fact regarding comparative negligence for the § 241 (6) claim and the lack of a malfunctioning safety device for the § 240 (1) claim.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentExcavator AccidentConcrete DebrisLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentComparative NegligenceCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
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. ADJ498505 (SFO 0420916), ADJ4168794 (SFO 0485699), ADJ6979901
Regular
May 15, 2012

DEBORAH ROLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded a prior order, and canceled a trial date. This action prevents the relitigation of issues concerning the adequacy and applicant's competence to enter into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Board found that these issues were already decided with finality in a prior order that had res judicata effect. Therefore, the defendant would suffer prejudice by having to re-litigate settled matters.

RemovalCompromise and ReleaseAdequacyCompetenceReconsiderationFindings of Fact and LawLabor Code section 5803Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSua Sponte
References
1
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. ADJ3887642 (MON 0244638) ADJ2350388 (MON 0241177)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

MARION BARNES vs. JOHN RIORDAN PLUMBING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding that the defendant waived its claim for credit of overpaid temporary disability indemnity. This waiver occurred because the defendant failed to challenge a previous WCJ order from July 2009 that determined the issue had already been waived. The Board affirmed that the July 2009 order was a final order because it determined a substantive right of the parties. Therefore, the defendant could not relitigate this waived issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Associationliquidationcovered claimscredit for overpaymenttemporary disability indemnitywaiverfinal ordersubstantive rightreconsideration
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,813 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