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. ADJ3255503 (SDO 0362975)
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

JOHN KOSICH vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board correcting a clerical error in a previous order. The defendant, County of San Diego Sheriff's Department, had petitioned for reconsideration of a decision regarding injured worker John Kosich. The Board is correcting its January 25, 2010 Opinion and Order to reflect the correct injured worker's name as John Kosich, not James Kosich.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical Error CorrectionPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeInjured Worker Name CorrectionCounty of San Diego Sheriff's DepartmentPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ3255503SDO 0362975Opinion and Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Knudsen v. Nassau County Department of Social Services

Thomas and Carol Knudsen initiated an Article 78 proceeding against the Nassau County Department of Social Services, challenging three determinations. First, the denial of emergency assistance for clothing destroyed by pinworms was challenged, with the court ruling that the county's reliance on a State regulation limiting emergency assistance was invalid. The defense was struck, and the request was remanded for re-evaluation. Second, the reduction of their Aid to Dependent Children grant in December 1973, without proper notice and opportunity for a hearing, was annulled. Third, the denial of assistance to Mr. Knudsen in January 1974, due to the department's failure to transfer his name for supplemental security income, was also addressed. The court granted judgment in favor of the petitioners, directing relief consistent with its rulings and ordering the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services to appear and explain the department's persistent policy regarding emergency assistance limitations.

Emergency AssistanceSocial Services LawPublic AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenWelfare BenefitsDue ProcessFair HearingAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationNassau County DSS
References
27
Case No. SDO 0249452
Regular
May 12, 2008

GAIL GODFREY vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE ENTERPRISE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANY

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the County of San Diego was the applicant's special employer, making them jointly and severally liable for her injury. This determination was made despite a contract stating the applicant was not a County employee, as the Board found sufficient evidence of San Diego's control over her work. Consequently, the County is considered "other insurance available" to the applicant, meaning CIGA is not liable for her benefits.

CIGAcovered claimspecial employergeneral employerlabor brokerageindustrial injuryinsolvent insurerother insurancejoint and several liabilitycontractual exclusion
References
14
Case No. ADJ9117400
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

MARK SAVEY vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PROBATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Mark Savey's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. California law allows 25 days for filing, with extensions for weekends or holidays, but the petition was received by the WCAB more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision. This jurisdictional defect meant the WCAB lacked authority to consider the petition. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportProof of MailingJurisdictional Time LimitMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
4
Case No. ADJ6996303
Regular
Mar 23, 2023

JOHN DAVIES vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PROBATION DEPT., COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior award of 84% permanent disability for a Probation Officer with heart/hypertension and hip injuries. The Board found that Labor Code section 3212.10's heart presumption and section 4663(e)'s non-attribution clause prohibit apportionment of the applicant's new and further disability. The defendant's contention that prior stipulations required apportionment was rejected, citing precedent that such presumptions take precedence. The Board clarified that the 84% represents the applicant's total permanent disability, not solely the new and further disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHeart PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.10Non-Attribution ClauseLabor Code Section 4663(e)
References
5
Case No. ADJ1486602 (SDO 0365291) ADJ4603588 (SDO 0365290)
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

MARK COLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Diego's Petition for Removal, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision. The County sought removal to conduct further defense discovery, claiming prejudice from the trial being set. However, the Board found the County had repeatedly represented readiness for trial, failed to diligently pursue discovery regarding prior injuries or vocational experts, and offered no substantial good cause for the requested delay. The Board concluded the cases should remain on the trial calendar.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference StatementOccupational GroupPermissibly Self-InsuredDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAgreed Medical EvaluatorMedicare Set AsideVocational Expert
References
0
Case No. ADJ2041648 (SDO 0319858) ADJ2762432 (SDO 0319859) ADJ772603 (SDO 0319860)
Regular

STACIE L. NELDAUGHTER vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Diego's petition for removal. The County sought to rescind a six-month continuance granted for the applicant, alleging prejudice and discovery abuses, but failed to demonstrate significant harm. The Board found the County's arguments insufficient to justify removal and returned the cases to the trial level. The PWCJ is to schedule a status conference after January 26, 2010, to determine if further continuance is warranted based on a "clear showing of good cause."

Petition for RemovalOrder Granting ContinuancePrejudiceIrreparable HarmADA AccommodationDisability CoordinatorContinued HearingStatus ConferenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery Abuses
References
0
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liss v. Nassau County

Barry Liss filed claims against Nassau County and its departments, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL. Liss sustained work-related injuries and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, requiring accommodations for working at heights and in hot temperatures. He contended that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to further injuries. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the ADA claims, finding them not time-barred and issues of fact regarding reasonable accommodation and qualification. However, state law claims for NYSHRL and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with punitive damages, were dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to file a timely Notice of Claim and the non-recoverability of punitive damages against municipal defendants.

ADANYSHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationFailure to AccommodateEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNassau CountyMultiple Sclerosis
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 9,041 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