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. ADJ18376723
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories
References
12
Case No. ADJ3416937 (SRO 0141443) ADJ4476347 (SRO 0118020)
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

TIMOTHY ROBINSON vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns apportionment of permanent disability for an injured correctional officer. The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his neck, resulting in a 12% permanent disability after initial apportionment. The WCJ calculated a total permanent disability of 43%, then apportioned 20% to non-industrial factors under Labor Code section 4663. Further apportionment occurred for a prior low back injury under Labor Code section 4664, using a converted rating from the old schedule to the new AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding no prohibition against applying both section 4663 and section 4664 apportionment, and deeming the prior injury properly converted and subtracted. A dissenting opinion argued that the older rating schedule's "overlap" concept is incompatible with the current AMA Guides method, and that the defendant failed to prove overlap for the prior injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of SonomaTimothy RobinsonCorrectional OfficerIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664
References
6
Case No. GRO 0028123, GRO 0028394
Significant
Feb 27, 2006

Eric Pasquotto, Applicant vs. Hayward Lumber, Connecticut Indemnity Insurance Company, and Athens Administrators (Adjusting Agent)

This case holds that an order approving a compromise and release agreement is not a 'prior award of permanent disability' under Labor Code section 4664(b), but evidence from the prior injury may still be relevant for apportionment under section 4663. It also affirms that medical rehabilitation from a prior disability remains a viable concept under section 4663.

SB 899ApportionmentCompromise and ReleasePrior AwardPermanent DisabilityMedical RehabilitationOther FactorsLabor Code Sections 4663 and 4664En Banc DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1998

Cataudella v. Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc.

Plaintiff Alfred Cataudella sought damages for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc., and Elm Management Co. moved for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, which was initially granted but later denied by the Supreme Court upon the plaintiffs' successful motion for renewal and reargument. On appeal, the higher court modified the lower court's decision, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the plaintiff's injuries were not from an elevation-related hazard. Consequently, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, thus effectively granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Furthermore, the third-party defendant Walcat Plumbing and Heating Corp.'s motion to vacate an order of default was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppealLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardDefault JudgmentVacate DefaultProcedural LawNew York LawAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02008 [237 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. Section II Inc.

Plaintiff Kyle Hartrum, an employee of Electronic Service Solutions, Inc. (ESS), sustained severe arm lacerations while removing communications equipment from a building roof owned by Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. The accident occurred when a piece of sheet metal being hand-hoisted swung and struck him. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, granting Hartrum summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Monte Housing, SBA Site Management, LLC, Flo TV Incorporated, and KMB Design Group, LLC. The court also dismissed Hartrum's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against all defendants and granted several contractual indemnity claims among the parties, including Montefiore, SBA, Flo, KMB, and ESS.

Labor Law § 240(1) LiabilitySafe Place to WorkSummary Judgment GrantContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site AccidentHoisting SafetyAppellate Division ReviewLessor/Sublessor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkNegligence Dismissal
References
12
Case No. ADJ1 0277951
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

DANNY HILL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, legally uninsured and adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant, Department of Transportation, sought to compel the applicant, Danny Hill, to disclose all prior permanent disabilities and physical impairments under Labor Code section 4663(d). The WCJ initially denied the defendant's petition, finding no good cause. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's denial, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ's denial unsupported, as Labor Code section 4663(d) unequivocally requires such disclosure upon request.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Compel DisclosureLabor Code section 4663(d)permanent disabilitiesphysical impairmentsWCJ denialAppeals Boardtrial levelmedical treatmentapplicant disclosure
References
2
Case No. SAC 0316687
Regular
May 20, 2008

STEVE OLSON vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Labor Code section 4663(e), effective January 1, 2007, applies retroactively to a 2002 injury regarding apportionment of permanent disability for heart trouble. The Board rescinded its prior decision and the trial judge's decision, returning the case to the trial level to await a Court of Appeal ruling on this identical issue in the *Alexander* case. The outcome will depend on whether the court finds section 4663(e) retroactively applicable to pre-2007 injuries.

Labor Code section 4663section 4663(e)heart trouble presumptionapportionmentcumulative industrial injurycorrectional lieutenantpermanent disabilityreconsiderationrescindedretroactive application
References
1
Case No. ADJ2425610 (STK 0180003), ADJ3704258 (STK 0181637), ADJ6883666
Regular
Aug 27, 2012

STATE ADAMS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed prior findings awarding applicant cumulative industrial injuries to his circulatory and respiratory systems, and subsequent psychiatric injury. Applicant sought to reopen a stipulation for a 5% non-industrial apportionment based on a claimed change in law or mutual mistake of fact regarding Labor Code section 4663(e). The Board found no good cause to reopen, as section 4663(e) was declaratory of existing law and the defendant did not share applicant's asserted mistake. Therefore, the previous awards and stipulations, including the apportionment, remain valid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and AwardCorrectional Youth CounselorCumulative Industrial InjuryCirculatory SystemRespiratory SystemPsychiatric InjuryPetition to ReopenNew and Further Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Ornellas v. Roger Maffei, Inc.

The claimant injured his neck in 1970, and despite medical bills being paid by the carrier, no compensation was issued due to a lack of disability exceeding seven days. The case was closed in 1973 after a Referee found no causal link between a subsequent laminectomy and the initial injury. In 1977, a new medical bill prompted the Workers’ Compensation Board to reopen the case, examining liability under Workers' Compensation Law sections 123 and 25-a. Both a Referee and the Board initially found these sections inapplicable. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision regarding section 123 but reversed its finding on section 25-a, ruling the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable, and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this determination.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened CasesStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 123Medical Expense LiabilityCausationDisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,810 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