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. 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. 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. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Belmar

Claimant, a school guard for the New York City Board of Education, was terminated after failing to disclose an arrest and conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred during nonworking hours, but the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that his conduct constituted misconduct directly related to his position and posed a safety risk to students, thus disqualifying him from benefits. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that misconduct affecting integrity, even if off-duty, bears a relationship to employment under Labor Law § 593 (4). The court also held that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities does not exempt an individual from a finding of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCriminal ConvictionSchool GuardWeapon PossessionOff-Duty ConductCertificate of ReliefCivil DisabilitiesBoard of EducationPersonnel Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kagha v. Carter

Petitioner, a hospital courier, was discharged by respondent Westchester County Medical Center following sustained charges of misconduct, including 72 specifications of lateness, unauthorized absences, and failure to follow reporting procedures. Petitioner challenged the termination, asserting a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120 due to a reopened workers' compensation case and arguing a doctor's note justified his absences. The court rejected the Workers' Compensation claim, noting the Workers' Compensation Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and dismissed the doctor's note argument, emphasizing the employer's established call-in policy and petitioner's history of time and leave abuses. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, finding the penalty of discharge proportionate to the pattern of misconduct.

MisconductTermination of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Civil Service Law § 75Workers' Compensation Law § 120Time and Leave AbusesUnauthorized AbsenceCall-in PolicyJudicial ReviewPenalty Proportionality
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,579 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