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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ7129675 ADJ6931789 ADJ6930948
Regular
Mar 23, 2017

REGGIE MANANQUIL vs. APPLIED MATERIALS, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying home health care. The WCAB initially affirmed the denial based on the applicant failing to prove services weren't regularly performed prior to injury per Labor Code section 5307.8. However, upon reconsideration, the WCAB amended the decision to award home health care services, finding medical necessity established by substantial evidence. The WCAB deferred the section 5307.8 issue for further record development while affirming other aspects of the original order.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND ORDERWCJLABOR CODEINDUSTRIAL INJURYHOME HEALTH CARESUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCEBURDEN OF PROOFSECTION 5307.8
References
14
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betal Environmental Corp. v. Local Union Number 78, Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

Plaintiff Betal Environmental Corporation filed a labor action against Local Union 78 under section 303 of the LMRA, alleging unfair labor practices, and against York Hunter Construction, Inc. for breach of contract. Betal sought damages from Local 78 and payment from York, along with a declaratory judgment to void a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between Local 78 and York. Defendants moved to dismiss the sixth cause of action (declaratory judgment). The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over direct section 8(e) violations under section 303 of the LMRA, concluding such claims fall under the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction unless involving coercive activity under section 8(b)(4).

Labor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesHot Cargo ClauseCollective Bargaining AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionSection 303 LMRASection 8(e) NLRASection 8(b)(4) NLRANational Labor Relations Board
References
12
Case No. ADJ7133410
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

HUGO DIAZ vs. YOUTH CONNECTION OF VENTURA COUNTY, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The administrative law judge had dismissed a lien claimant's lien for failing to timely file a declaration under Labor Code section 4903.8. However, the Board found that section 4903.8, as amended, does not mandate dismissal for pre-2013 liens with untimely declarations. While the lien is not dismissed, the Board noted that the untimely filing could be grounds for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code section 4903.8Mandatory dismissalSenate Bill 863Declaration of perjuryUntimely declarationInvalid lien
References
3
Case No. ADJ9944340
Regular
Aug 02, 2018

MICHAEL NIELSEN vs. CITY OF SEBASTOPOL

This case involves a lien claimant, Associated Reproduction Services (ARS), seeking full payment for document copying services related to an injured worker's claim. ARS argues that Labor Code section 5307.9, which limits fees for services provided within 30 days of a request, does not apply because they did not subpoena records from the employer or insurer directly. The Appeals Board rescinded the previous order, finding that the fee schedule required by Section 5307.9 was not effective when the services were rendered. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine payment of the lien under Labor Code sections 4620 and 4622, considering the defendant's obligation to timely object to contested expenses.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of SebastopolMichael NielsenRedwood Empire Municipal Insurance FundLien ClaimantAssociated Reproduction ServicesInc.Labor Code Section 5307.9Fee ScheduleMedical-Legal Expenses
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union No. 28

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against an unnamed labor organization (the respondent) under Section 10(l) of the NLRA. This action stemmed from a charge by Ferro-Co Corporation, alleging the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4)(A) by inducing employees of Dierks Heating Co., Inc. to refuse to handle Ferro-Co products. The court examined whether the respondent's actions constituted an illegal secondary boycott, which the legislative history of Section 8(b)(4)(A) aimed to prevent. It found no evidence of a labor dispute between the respondent and Ferro-Co (the 'secondary' employer), concluding the dispute was primarily with Dierks (the 'primary' employer). Since the circumstances did not align with the traditional concept of a secondary boycott, the court determined that equitable relief was not warranted and consequently denied the petition for injunctive relief.

Labor InjunctionSecondary BoycottNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(A)Taft-Hartley ActUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementPrimary DisputeNeutral EmployerUnion ConductTemporary Restraining Order
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1991

Square D Co. v. Schneider S.A.

Plaintiff Square D Company alleged that defendant Schneider, S.A. and its affiliates were engaged in an illegal plan to acquire Square D through a hostile tender offer and proxy fight. Square D filed an Amended and Supplemental Complaint, claiming violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Defendants moved to dismiss these counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing lack of standing and flaws in the plaintiff's legal theories. The Court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, affirming Square D's standing to bring the antitrust claims and accepting the 'agency theory' for Section 8 liability at this preliminary stage. The Court also denied the defendants' application for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), citing the expedited schedule of the case and the potential for hindering resolution.

Antitrust LawClayton ActSherman ActHostile TakeoverProxy FightCorporate AcquisitionMotion to DismissAntitrust InjuryStandingInterlocking Directorates
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,359 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