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. ADJ3793506 (LBO 0329885)
Regular
Jun 18, 2014

LYDIA QUINONES vs. STAR RING/CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY as administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The defendant argued its due process rights were violated by the denial of a supplemental QME report and challenged the 100% permanent disability finding and other awards. The Board intends to admit specific applicant expert reports into evidence, subject to objection. A ruling on the merits of the petition will follow a review of any objections.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardVocational ExpertHome Health CarePermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorDue ProcessSupplemental ReportSubstantial EvidenceAdmitted Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ9507108
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

RICARDO GOMEZ vs. M&T SEAFOOD VILLAGE, INC., OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted Reshealth Medical Group's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior finding that its lien was stayed under Labor Code section 4615. The WCAB found insufficient substantial evidence that Eric Schames, who is subject to a stay, was an officer, director, or 10% shareholder of Reshealth Medical Group. Public filings from the Secretary of State contradicted the limited evidence presented by the defense regarding Schames' control over Reshealth Medical Group. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to properly determine if the lien is subject to the stay.

Labor Code section 4615Petition for ReconsiderationLien claimantWCJEric SchamesDIR listEAMS notationFTB responseSecretary of Statecontrolled entity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hostess Brands, Inc.

This modified bench ruling addresses a motion by the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (Bakers' Union) to dismiss a debtor's Section 1113/1114 motion due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The central dispute revolves around whether Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, which governs the rejection of collective bargaining agreements, applies to agreements that have technically expired but whose key terms remain in effect under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) until good faith bargaining to impasse. The Bakers' Union argued that expired agreements are not considered 'agreements' under Section 1113, a position the court largely concurred with, emphasizing the plain language of the statute and the distinction between Section 1113(e) and other subsections. Despite the debtor's arguments concerning the policy implications and potential interference with reorganization efforts, the court found insufficient evidence to extend the statute's language beyond its literal meaning. Consequently, the court granted the Bakers' Union's motion, concluding that Section 1113 does not apply to already expired collective bargaining agreements.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBankruptcy Code Section 1113Subject Matter JurisdictionNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Expired AgreementsDebtor in PossessionUnion Motion to DismissInterim ChangesGood Faith BargainingStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1980

Claim of Mastrogiovanni v. Underhill

The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, filed April 17, 1980, concerned a claimant who sustained two back injuries in 1975 while working as a labor foreman. The Board, relying on medical evidence from Doctors Kessler and Hochberg, apportioned responsibility for the claimant's overall disability: 25% to the July 3, 1975 accident and 75% to the October 7, 1975 accident. It further determined that the July 3, 1975 accident was not subject to Workers’ Compensation Law section 15-8d, as it did not materially and substantially worsen any prior permanent condition. Conversely, the October 7, 1975 accident was deemed subject to section 15-8d due to its material and substantial worsening of the claimant's condition. The employer and carrier appealed, challenging the apportionment and seeking reimbursement under section 15-8d for the July 3, 1975 accident, contending a preexisting condition should bear a portion of the disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support its findings.

ApportionmentWorkers' CompensationBack InjuryDisabilityPreexisting ConditionSection 15-8dMedical EvidenceAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceBoard Panel
References
4
Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

Claim of Campione v. FMCS

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits due to alleged neurological injuries from workplace pesticide exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reviewed conflicting medical evidence. The employer's medical expert found no objective signs of injury, while claimant's experts' opinions relied heavily on subjective complaints. Deferring to the Board's evaluation of evidence and credibility, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationPesticide ExposureNeurological InjuryMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationSubjective ComplaintsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCausally Related DisabilityBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vitale v. Apfel

Plaintiff Peter Vitale sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied his application for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff alleged disability since November 1980 due to chronic back/neck pain and depression, with his insured status expiring in December 1985. The court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. It concluded that the medical evidence was insufficient to prove disability before his insured status expired and that subjective evidence alone could not sustain his burden of proof. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and judgment was entered against the plaintiff.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Appeals CouncilChronic Back PainDepressionInsured StatusMedical Evidence SufficiencyTreating Physician Opinion
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11,737 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