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. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. ADJ7730252
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

MARIA OLVERA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns sanctions and costs imposed against Peter T. Brown & Associates, Peter T. Brown, Esq., and hearing representative Shapoor Ashorzadeh. The Court of Appeal annulled the Appeals Board's previous decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the matter is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing on sanctions and costs, allowing the petitioners their right to be heard. The WCJ will then issue a new decision after this hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctions and CostsRemandCumulative Trauma ClaimSpecific InjuryDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingLabor Code section 5813Non-attorney Representative SupervisionPetition for Writ of Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court judgment in New York County, dated October 29, 1975, which had dismissed a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain custody of her 15-year-old child from the child's grandmother. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, finding that while extraordinary circumstances existed (mother's voluntary surrender of custody, child's long-term residence with grandmother, mother's unwed status and living situation, and past emotional issues) that warranted applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the original hearing was inadequate. The court noted deficiencies such as the child not testifying, restricted inquiry into the mother's relationship with the child, and limited elaboration by a psychiatric worker. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a new hearing to properly determine the child's best interest, to be conducted before a different judge. Justice Kupferman concurred with the 'best interest' standard but dissented on the need to assign a different judge.

Child CustodyHabeas CorpusParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewFamily LawRemandInadequate HearingJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. ADJ3123745 (VNO 0551286) ADJ3791599 (VNO 0548958)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

Steven Kroesen (Deceased), Jennifer Kroesen (Widow) vs. CITY OF TORRANCE, CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for Steven Kroesen due to a dispute over the timeliness of the applicant's petition. The applicant claims their petition was timely delivered on November 12, 2014, via FedEx, but the WCAB's records show a filing date of November 13, 2014. The WCAB has returned the case to the administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact filing date and address jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. This hearing will resolve whether the petition was filed within the statutorily allowed timeframe, considering Veterans Day and potential delays.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionEvidentiary HearingJoint Findings and OrderReport of Workers' Compensation JudgeSupplemental PetitionFedEx deliveryR. SolisVeteran's Day
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldlust v. Bates

In this Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner sought to annul the revocation of her appointment as a social case worker or to obtain an evidentiary hearing. Her appointment was rescinded due to suspicions of food stamp fraud, stemming from an alleged failure to report income from a part-time job. Respondents argued the rescission was a discretionary administrative act and that petitioner had no right to a prior hearing. The court, citing Board of Regents v Roth, determined that the petitioner's right to an evidentiary hearing, particularly when her reputation is affected, is comparable to that of a probationary employee. Consequently, the petition was granted in part, remanding the matter to the Department of Social Services for an evidentiary hearing within 50 days to address the allegations of food stamp regulation violations.

Article 78Probationary EmploymentDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingFood Stamp FraudRescission of AppointmentAdministrative ReviewReputationWestchester County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rockstone Capital LLC v. Metal

Rockstone Capital LLC appealed an order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bankruptcy Court had denied Rockstone's objection to a claim filed by Alisa Metal, debtor Keith Bub's former spouse, classifying it as a domestic support obligation (DSO) with highest priority. Rockstone argued that the Bankruptcy Court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing or allowing discovery, and by incorrectly finding Metal's claim to be a DSO. The District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order and remanded the case, finding insufficient factual findings regarding the relative incomes of Bub and Metal at the time of their separation agreement, a critical factor for DSO determination. The case was remanded for further factual development, including potentially additional discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

BankruptcyDomestic Support ObligationDSOPriority ClaimDebtorFormer SpouseMarital ResidenceMortgage PaymentsIncome DiscrepancyFactual Development
References
49
Case No. 2016-07-0351
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2016

Crumble, Mae v. Express Services

This expedited hearing order addresses a workers' compensation claim filed by Mae Crumble against Express Services and New Hampshire Ins. Co. for a right shoulder injury sustained on November 14, 2015. The case was remanded by the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to determine if Dr. Sioson was an authorized treating physician whose causation opinion was entitled to a presumption of correctness. The Court found that Express Services failed to provide Ms. Crumble with a valid panel of physicians, noting issues with the selection process and Ms. Crumble's intellectual limitations. Consequently, Dr. Sioson's opinion was not afforded a presumption of correctness, and the Court determined it did not meet the legal standard for causation. The Court ordered Express Services to provide Ms. Crumble with a new, valid panel of physicians to evaluate and treat her injury.

Medical BenefitsExpedited HearingRemandAuthorized Treating PhysicianCausation OpinionPanel of PhysiciansRight Shoulder InjuryMedical ExaminationEmployer's DutyEmployee Selection
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1994

S & L RESTAURANT CORP. v. Leal

This document is a concurring opinion by Justice Hardberger regarding the denial of an en banc rehearing. The case involves a settlement agreement between Steak and Ale (appellant/defendant) and Annie Leal (appellee/plaintiff). Steak and Ale claims the settlement was procured by fraud and seeks a new trial, arguing the trial court did not properly render judgment. Justice Hardberger argues that judgment was indeed rendered at the May 14, 1991 hearing, as 'magic words' are not required, and the court's approval of the settlement constituted rendition. He also emphasizes that the appellate court is not the proper forum for a factual determination of fraud, and the case should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on Steak and Ale's motion for a new trial to determine if fraud occurred. He believes that certitude regarding fraud outweighs a small delay and an en banc rehearing is inappropriate due to its rarity and the lack of an initial evidentiary hearing at the trial court level.

Concurring OpinionEn Banc RehearingMotion for RehearingSettlement AgreementConsent JudgmentFraud AllegationsEvidentiary HearingRendition of JudgmentTrial Court RemandAppellate Procedure
References
27
Case No. ADJ3362610 (AHM 0122924)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

JOSE COLLASO, JOSE COLLAZO vs. PACIFIC FRESH FOOD CO., PREMIER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 146 days after the original dismissal order, far exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board noted that untimely petitions cannot be excused by mistake or excusable neglect, even if the applicant experienced homelessness. However, the WCAB will remand the case to the WCJ to treat the petition as a request to reopen the dismissal for good cause and schedule a hearing on that specific issue.

Petition for reconsiderationDismissal for lack of prosecutionPetition to reopenGood causeJurisdictional time limitsFinal orderUntimely petitionContinuing jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
16
Case No. 2019-06-0272
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2019

Ayala, Nilian v. Jani-King International, Inc, d/b/a CIX, LLC

This case came before the Court on Nilian Ayala’s request for an expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. The employer, Jani-King International, Inc., agreed to provide a panel of physicians for Ms. Ayala's hand, wrist, and elbow treatment. However, the Court could not grant temporary total disability benefits due to the lack of medical records from a physician taking her off work. Consequently, the evidentiary hearing did not proceed. The Court ordered the employer to provide the panel of physicians and scheduled a future scheduling hearing.

expedited hearingmedical benefitstemporary disabilitypanel of physiciansworkers' compensation claimsTennesseehand injurywrist injuryelbow injuryemployer responsibility
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,302 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