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. ADJ8300983
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

ALBERTO CHICO vs. ONEMOR, INC., dba McDONALD'S, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration for the Jacobs-represented lien claimants, upholding the disallowance of their liens due to a failure to prove industrial injury and insufficient evidence. However, the Board granted reconsideration for the Kauffman-represented lien claimants, rescinding the sanctions previously imposed. While agreeing that the Kauffman claimants also failed to prove injury, the Board found their conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous tactics required for sanctions.

WCABlien claimantspetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderOrder Overruling Objection and Imposing Sanctionsindustrial injuryprobative evidencesanctionsbad-faith actionsfrivolous
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Keystone Silver, Inc.

This case addresses a motion to dismiss a complaint filed under Section 16b of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The central issue is whether an ex-employee can initiate and maintain a representative action on behalf of other current employees who are members of a rival union, particularly when these employees did not consent to the action and it proceeds against their will. The court ruled that such a representative action cannot be sustained under these circumstances, citing concerns about consent, interests of the represented parties, and public policy. The motion was granted to strike all allegations pertaining to the representative character of the action, except for Harry Orfinger's individual claim.

Fair Labor Standards ActRepresentative ActionLegal Capacity to SueMotion to DismissEx-EmployeeUnion RepresentationClass ActionMultiplicity of ActionsPublic PolicyEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. 09 Civ. 9368; 10 Civ. 4153
Regular Panel Decision

Federation of Union Representatives v. Unite Here

Plaintiff Federation of Union Representatives (FOUR), a labor union, filed actions against defendant UNITE HERE (UH) to confirm an arbitral award from May 29, 2009, and to compel UH to comply with the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The arbitral award addressed UH's violation of a collective bargaining agreement by treating automobile insurance reimbursements as taxable income. UH moved for summary judgment, contending that FOUR lacked standing because it had been decertified as the exclusive bargaining representative and replaced by the Union of Unite Here Staff (UUHS). FOUR cross-moved to compel UH to appear before the arbitrator for the limited purpose of finalizing the award. The Court, citing the National Labor Relations Act's principle of exclusive representation, determined that FOUR, as a decertified union with a successor in place, no longer had standing to enforce or confirm the award. Consequently, the Court granted UH's motions, denied FOUR's cross-motion, and dismissed both actions.

Labor LawUnion DecertificationArbitral Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementStanding to SueExclusive RepresentationSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActLabor Dispute
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Plaintiffs Rishe and Regan sued District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and eight individual representatives, alleging a breach of a collective bargaining agreement for condoning their wrongful discharge and termination of employment without proper cause. The original complaints, based on diversity of citizenship, were dismissed. Amended complaints asserted jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 102 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The court denied District 50's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding a valid cause of action under Section 301. However, the motion of the individual Representatives to dismiss was granted, as Section 301(b) precludes enforcing judgments against a labor organization's members individually.

Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful DischargeUnion Duty to EnforceJurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor Organization LiabilityIndividual Representative LiabilityBreach of Contract
References
5
Case No. ADJ3953416
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

CLENNON MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order vacating a trial date. The Board also denied the defendant's petition to remove the applicant's non-attorney representative, Danny Boyd, from appearing, despite Boyd's history of abusive conduct. However, the Board issued a stern warning to Boyd that future misconduct will result in proceedings to remove his privilege to represent parties. The Board noted Boyd's potential violation of paralegal regulations and advised him to ensure compliance.

WCABPetition for RemovalHearing RepresentativeLabor Code Section 4907Cease and Desist OrderAbusive ConductNon-attorney RepresentativeSB 899Labor Code Section 5814Medical Mileage
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unsecured Claims Estate Representative of Teligent, Inc. v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc. (In Re Teligent Inc.)

This case is an appeal by Savage & Associates, P.C., acting as the Unsecured Claims Estate Representative for Teligent, Inc., against Cigna Healthcare. The Representative challenged the Bankruptcy Court's summary judgment ruling, which determined that Teligent had assumed a group insurance contract with Cigna. The central issue on appeal was whether the original insurance policy terminated due to periodic rate renewals, thereby giving rise to new contracts and allowing the recovery of preference payments made to Cigna. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the insurance contract was a single, continuous agreement, with re-ratings merely adjustments rather than terminations. The District Court affirmed this decision, holding that the policy lacked a fixed term and continued indefinitely, and that rate renewals did not constitute new contracts.

BankruptcyInsurance ContractExecutory ContractContract AssumptionSummary JudgmentAppealPreference PaymentsRate RenewalContract InterpretationDelaware Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ7096210
Regular
Apr 11, 2011

ROBERTO GONZALEZ vs. JERRY'S FAMOUS DELI, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, which contained false factual assertions regarding a prior conference. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,500 each against Hearing Representative Lance Garrett and Attorney Carl Feldman for their bad-faith actions. The Board also ordered Attorney Feldman to identify the representative who appeared at the January 26, 2011 conference.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder To Suspend ProceedingCompel Medical ExaminationPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Hearing RepresentativeSanctionsFrivolous PetitionBad Faith Actions
References
1
Case No. ADJ8094646
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

ALEJANDRINA BARRETO vs. OUT OF THE SHELL, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, PHARMAFINANCE, LLC, HEALTHCARE FINANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC

This case involves lien claimants PharmaFinance and Healthcare Finance Management, and their representatives Landmark Medical Management and Brian Hall, who sought reconsideration of a decision disallowing their liens for medical treatment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to notice its intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimants and their representatives. This action is due to a pattern of allegedly filing petitions containing false statements about not receiving notices, which violates the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and Labor Code Section 5813. The Board found these claims not persuasive and indicative of a tactic to avoid responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLien ClaimantsHearing RepresentativesIndustrial InjuryFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseNotice of IntentionLabor Code section 5813
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration Between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n & Monroe County

The petitioner, representing Deputy Sheriffs, challenged an arbitration award concerning holiday pay. Five Deputy Sheriffs, scheduled to work on July 4, 2011, received only eight hours of holiday pay despite being granted the day off, not their regular shift pay plus holiday pay. The petitioner argued that the collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249 mandated additional payment. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding neither required the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed this award, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no excess of arbitral power, no irrational construction of the CBA, and no violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceArbitration AwardPublic PolicyMilitary LawHoliday PayDeputy SheriffsCPLR Article 75AffirmanceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. New York City Department of Transportation

The claimant, who sustained work-related injuries on December 20, 2011, retained Joel Fredericson as a licensed representative. Fredericson initially received a $2,450 fee in 2012. After further proceedings and an award of $202,689.44 to the claimant, Fredericson applied for an additional fee of $28,000 for 61 hours of work. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) subsequently awarded Fredericson $10,700. Fredericson appealed this to the Workers’ Compensation Board, requesting an increase to $16,500. The Board, however, reduced his fee to $450, citing an insufficient and inaccurate fee application (form OC-400.1) with significant discrepancies compared to his earlier submission. This court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion in approving counsel fees and upholding the reduction due to the severe deficiencies in Fredericson's fee application.

Fee DisputeAttorney FeesRepresentative FeesWorkers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionFee ApplicationForm OC-400.1Counsel FeesAppellate ReviewSchedule Loss of Use
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 955 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