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

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2006

In re the Arbitration between Mays-Carr & State Farm Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied her petition seeking to set aside an arbitration award and to obtain a new hearing before a different arbitrator. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator either exceeded his power or imperfectly executed it, and also alleged partiality, referencing CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (ii), (iii). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, asserting that an arbitrator's power is exceeded only when the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or explicitly surpasses enumerated limitations. It found the arbitrator's determination, which denied the petitioner an award for economic loss beyond basic economic loss, to be rational and supported by the record, especially given the absence of a serious injury finding. Furthermore, the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's claims of arbitrator bias as speculative, stating that past adverse rulings against her counsel do not inherently establish a lack of impartiality.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardArbitrator ImpartialityExceeded PowerImperfect ExecutionSerious InjuryEconomic LossAppellate ReviewNew York State
References
7
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. ADJ1377755 (FRE 0242857) ADJ1891281 (FRE 0242858)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

RUDOLPH GUTIERREZ vs. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE, CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant Gutierrez's petition for reconsideration of a January 19, 2010 stipulation and order. Applicant contended the settlement was not secured with his consent. The Board treated his petition as a motion to set aside the award. The case is returned to the trial level for the judge to consider the set-aside petition and conduct further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderPro SeAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedReturned to Trial LevelAwardConsent
References
0
Case No. ADJ3502038 (VNO 0531200) ADJ3850322 (VNO 0531201)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

MARIA DE LA LUZ PADILLA vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award (S&A) regarding applicant's neck, shoulder, and chest injuries. The defendant claimed mutual mistake and delays by applicant's attorney as grounds to set aside the S&A. However, the WCAB found these allegations insufficient to overturn the executed contract. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's separate petition to set aside the S&A, due to apparent procedural irregularities.

Stipulations and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseDelay in ApprovalService of DocumentEthical BreachesTrial Level ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

La Fountaine v. Franzese

This personal injury action concerns a plaintiff (a minor) who suffered lead poisoning between April 1992 and September 1993 while living in an apartment owned and managed by the defendants. Routine medical examinations revealed elevated blood lead levels, prompting the Albany County Department of Health to order lead abatement procedures, which the defendants performed inadequately. Experts testified that the lead poisoning caused permanent disorders, including ADHD, cognitive, and reading disorders, which were not capable of practical apportionment between pre-notice and post-notice exposure periods. The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $300,000 for future lost earnings, assigning 70% liability to the defendants. Defendants appealed the judgment and the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict, arguing lack of liability before notice, erroneous jury instructions, and excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment and order, finding the defendants' arguments without merit and upholding the jury's findings on non-apportionment of injuries and the reasonableness of the damage awards.

Lead poisoningLandlord liabilityPersonal injury damagesNon-apportionment of injuriesADHDCognitive disordersEnvironmental lead hazardInadequate abatementExpert medical testimonyJury verdict review
References
12
Case No. AHM 81069 AHM 81103 AHM 81104
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

SHEILA RAY vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, SEDGWICK DMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior order that had set aside a 2001 stipulated award. The Board found the judge lacked jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5804 to grant the applicant's petition to set aside the award due to a supposed mutual mistake regarding permanent disability rating. Consequently, the applicant's petitions to set aside the award and to reopen for new and further disability were denied.

WCABRalphs Grocery CompanySedgwick DMSSheila RayReconsiderationStipulated AwardMutual MistakeDisability Evaluation SpecialistPetition to Set AsideJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2006

Harding v. Onibokun

This medical malpractice action involves infant plaintiff Kyla Harding who sustained injuries due to the negligence of defendant Adedayo Onibokun. A jury found the defendant liable and awarded damages of $150,000 for past pain and suffering and $5,000,000 for future pain and suffering. The defendant moved to set aside the verdict, alleging excessive damages and that the liability finding was swayed by sympathy. The court denied the motion to set aside the liability finding and the past pain and suffering award. However, the motion to set aside the future pain and suffering award was granted, with a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced amount of $2,950,000.

Medical MalpracticeJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingErb's PalsyNegligenceExcessive DamagesWeight of EvidenceConditional RemittiturJudicial Review
References
49
Case No. E2011-00896-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2012

John P. Konvalinka, Trustee v. American International Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, John P. Konvalinka, Trustee, appealed an order from the Chancery Court for Bradley County that set aside a default judgment he had obtained against American International Group, Inc. The defendant had successfully argued that it was not properly served. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's certification of the order as final under Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that the Rule 54.02 certification was improvidently granted because the order, which merely set aside a default judgment and reopened the complaint, did not dispose of an entire claim or was not dispositive with respect to a party. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Default JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRule 54.02 CertificationInterlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationService of ProcessDefault Judgment Set AsideLack of JurisdictionTennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureTennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle S. Silliman v. City of Memphis

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Memphis regarding the trial court's decision to set aside a 2006 consent order. The consent order allowed the annexation of the Southwind Annexation Area, effective December 31, 2013. Property owners sought to set aside this order, citing a new annexation moratorium (Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-122) passed in May 2013. The trial court sided with the property owners, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court clarified that the moratorium applies to the 'operative date' of the annexation ordinance, which for the City's ordinance was 2008, not the 'effective date' of the annexation. Therefore, the annexation was not prohibited by the moratorium, and the original consent order is reinstated.

Annexation LawConsent OrdersStatutory InterpretationRule 60.02 ReliefMootnessAbuse of Discretion StandardMunicipal BoundariesQuo Warranto ActionsLegislative AuthorityOperative Date vs Effective Date
References
108
Showing 1-10 of 12,162 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