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

People v. Tomaino

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree murder in connection with his wife's death. The conviction was subsequently reversed on appeal, and the indictment dismissed, due to cumulative errors during the Grand Jury proceedings and an improper denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss based on preindictment delay. The appellate court found that while initial resubmission to a Grand Jury was justified by improper instructions given to the first Grand Jury, the Special Grand Jury suffered from prosecutorial misconduct including the introduction of prejudicial and irrelevant testimony. Furthermore, audio tests conducted during the execution of a search warrant were deemed unauthorized. The case was remanded with leave for the People to apply for an order permitting resubmission of the charge to another Grand Jury.

MurderSecond DegreeGrand JuryIndictment DismissalProsecutorial MisconductDue ProcessSpeedy TrialPreindictment DelaySearch WarrantAudio Tests
References
23
Case No. ADJ7188251; ADJ7188272
Regular
Dec 30, 2013

RAYMOND MARK vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's "Petition for Re-Submission of ADR Cases" for being identical to a previously dismissed petition. The WCAB cited the same reasons as the prior dismissal in their Opinion and Order. The Board warned that further attempts to obtain action in violation of Labor Code section 3201.7 may be construed as a bad faith action, potentially leading to sanctions. Therefore, the applicant's petition was dismissed.

Petition for ResubmissionRemovalLC § 3201.7ADR ARB IVBad Faith ActionSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Los AngelesPermissibly Self-Insured
References
0
Case No. ADJ7188251; ADJ7188272
Regular
Mar 08, 2013

Raymond Mark vs. City of Los Angeles

This case involves a petition by applicant Raymond Mark to resubmit or remove two workers' compensation cases, alleging the City of Los Angeles refused to fund an arbitrator. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for three reasons: no arbitrator decision existed for review, the underlying claims were previously dismissed giving the Board no jurisdiction, and the Board lacks jurisdiction over disputes concerning the administration of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement itself. The Board concluded that the applicant's recourse for funding disputes lies in collective bargaining, arbitration, or petitioning the Administrative Director to decertify the agreement.

Petition for ResubmissionADR CasesL.C. § 3201.7ADR ARB IVCity of Los AngelesFunding ArbitratorOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. ADJ8937162
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

REGINALD HARRIS vs. LETICIA CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the underlying order vacating submission was interlocutory and not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address later. The WCJ's decision to seek clarification of medical reports before determining admissibility was deemed procedurally sound. Therefore, the defendants' challenges to the admissibility of evidence and request for resubmission were premature.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAdmissibility of Medical ReportsPanel QMETreating PhysicianPermanent and Stationary ReportApportionmentLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 1946

In re the Arbitration between Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., & Fifth Avenue Coach Co.

The Transport Workers Union of America, O.I.O., applied to vacate an arbitration award made in a dispute with the Fifth Avenue Coach Company. The core of the dispute revolved around the implementation of one-man operation of double-deck buses and related employment terms. The Union contended that the arbitrator failed to render a decision on the primary question regarding the implementation of one-man operation, despite it being a key item in the submission agreement. The court found that the arbitrator explicitly avoided deciding this issue, thus failing to fulfill the terms of the submission. Consequently, the court ruled that the award was not mutual, final, and definite on all matters submitted for arbitration, rendering it invalid. The application to vacate the award was therefore granted, with an order for resubmission.

ArbitrationAward VacatedLabor DisputeCollective BargainingOne-Man OperationDouble-Deck BusesArbitrator AuthorityScope of SubmissionUnionPublic Transport
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union of America

This case involves an action brought by members of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union to enjoin a ratification vote on a collective bargaining agreement and to direct its resubmission to the executive board. The dispute arose from a 22-22 tie vote by the executive board on a fact-finding panel's proposals to end an 11-day work stoppage, after which the president declared the strike terminated and the offer submitted for general membership ratification. Plaintiffs contended the president's actions violated union by-laws, particularly regarding the need for executive board approval and the president's voting conduct. The court found that the absent executive board member's absence was his own doing and that the by-laws do not preclude the chair's right to vote. The court also determined that the executive board's tie vote, coupled with the illegal nature of the strike under the Taylor Law, did not constitute a violation of by-laws preventing a membership vote. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant union, dismissing the complaint.

Union disputeCollective bargaining agreementRatification voteExecutive boardTie voteUnion by-lawsStrike terminationTaylor LawInternal remediesPresident's authority
References
12
Showing 1-6 of 6 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