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
Jun 29, 2017

In re U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), a Canadian subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, initiated a Chapter 15 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on June 2, 2017. The primary objective was to obtain recognition of its Canadian CCAA proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and to enforce the Sanction Order and the associated reorganization plan approved by the Canadian Court. No objections were raised to the requested relief. Following a hearing on June 29, 2017, the Court granted all requests, recognizing the CCAA proceeding and enforcing the Sanction Order and Plan. The Court's decision was based on USSC meeting Chapter 15 eligibility requirements, including having property in the U.S., and confirmed that the CCAA proceeding was a foreign main proceeding with USSC's center of main interests (COMI) in Canada.

Chapter 15 BankruptcyForeign Main ProceedingCross-Border InsolvencyCCAA ProceedingSanction OrderReorganization PlanInternational ComityBankruptcy Code Section 109(a)Center of Main Interests (COMI)Debtor Eligibility
References
50
Case No. A.P. 195-1539-352
Regular Panel Decision

Shapiro v. Halberstram (In Re Halberstram)

This bankruptcy court decision addresses two motions: the Debtor-Defendant's motion to dismiss an 11 U.S.C. § 523 adversary proceeding and the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions due to discovery non-compliance. The Debtor-Defendant sought dismissal based on procedural irregularities in the summons and complaint, including an incorrect case number, lack of required information, and an unsigned complaint. The court acknowledged the defects but ruled that the Debtor-Defendant's timely answer and active participation without objection constituted a waiver of the service issues. It also found that the deficiencies in the complaint were technical and not fatal, especially since the initial counsel was already sanctioned. Ultimately, both motions were denied, and the court urged the Plaintiffs to obtain new counsel and proceed with discovery to reach the merits of the dispute.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingMotion to DismissSanctionsProcedural DefectsSummonsComplaintWaiver of ServicePersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. ADJ7730252
Regular
Jul 22, 2015

MARIA OLVERA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered sanctions imposed by a WCJ against applicant's attorney and representative for failing to disclose a cumulative trauma claim and proceeding to trial without a legal basis. The Board rescinded one sanction for failure to disclose, finding no legal mandate for immediate disclosure, and clarified which parties were sanctioned for proceeding to trial without basis, reducing the penalties. The Board affirmed the award of costs to the defendant for defending against these actions. One Commissioner dissented, believing the conduct was not sanctionable given the evidence presented by applicant's representatives.

WCABSanctionsCostsLabor Code 5813Rule 10561Hearing RepresentativeCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryDue ProcessBill of Particulars
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kover

Attorneys Burton Citak and Donald L. Citak appealed orders that imposed sanctions and denied legal fees related to an article 81 guardianship proceeding for Eva Dworecki, an alleged incapacitated person. The attorneys were sanctioned for frivolous conduct, including making misrepresentations and false statements in court filings and arguments, and accusing the court of misconduct, despite previously consenting to the guardianship. The appellate decision, in this concurring opinion by Tom, J.P., found ample support for the Supreme Court's finding that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate costs, reduce the award to judgment, and set reasonable legal fees for the Citak firm's representation of Dr. Dworecki prior to the frivolous filings.

SanctionsAttorneysGuardianshipArticle 81Frivolous ConductAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductLegal FeesCostsCourt Orders
References
0
Case No. ADJ7199989, ADJ7118722
Regular
Feb 13, 2012

JUAN CERVANTES vs. WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) sanctioned applicant's attorney, Sunil Shaw, for $\$250.00$. This sanction was imposed for violating Appeals Board Rule 10842, related to proceedings before the Board. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion and issued a notice of intention to sanction, to which no objection was received. The sanction amount has been paid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionLabor Code Section 5310Appeals Board Rule 10842Notice of Intention to SanctionApplicant's AttorneyShow Good CauseDecision After RemovalWestern Medical Center
References
0
Case No. ADJ6849643
Regular
May 20, 2013

CHARLES MALINOWSKI vs. HSM ELECTRONIC PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., SPECIALTY RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order setting the case for trial and closing discovery, as such procedural orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion, finding the defendant's petition frivolous and indicative of bad faith tactics intended to delay proceedings. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction the defendant and its counsel jointly and severally, up to $1,500, for their improper procedural filing. The matter will proceed with trial pending the resolution of the sanctions issue.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSanctionBad FaithFrivolousLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 Section 10561Interlocutory OrderVocational Rehabilitation Expert
References
9
Case No. ADJ2543755 (LAO 0831288)
Regular
Oct 26, 2015

HERIBERTO ARGUETA vs. MILLENNIUM MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

Pinnacle Lien Services' petition for reconsideration was granted because the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacked personal jurisdiction over Pinnacle when sanctions were imposed. The WCAB found that Pinnacle was never properly joined as a party nor given adequate notice of the proceedings leading to the sanctions. Despite this finding, the WCAB intends to impose a sanction on Pinnacle for failing to timely address the wrongly issued order, which wasted WCAB resources. Therefore, the prior order imposing sanctions on Pinnacle is rescinded, but Pinnacle faces potential new sanctions for its delay.

Pinnacle Lien ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideLabor Code section 5804jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictiondue processNotice of Intent to SanctionJoint Findings and Ordersremoval
References
4
Case No. ADJ4317964 (LBO 0362360)
Regular
Aug 09, 2013

PEDRO BONILLA vs. JUAN GOMEZ dba TEAM WAREHOUSE PERSONNEL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a $\$750$ sanction imposed on lien claimant Tri City Regional Medical Center. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed prematurely was an error, it was based on a reasonable belief that the case had settled. The Board rescinded the original $\$750$ sanction and imposed a reduced sanction of $\$250$ jointly and severally on the lien claimant, its representative Richard Fruge, and his firm due to a clerical error in the original order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDue ProcessSupplemental PetitionWCAB Rule 10770.6Notice of Intention to Issue Sanctions
References
1
Case No. ADJ3113473
Regular
Sep 29, 2014

PAMELA JACKSON vs. WEST COAST SIGNS, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior sanctions order, and issued a new order imposing reduced sanctions of $500 against a lien claimant and its representative. The claimant's representative mistakenly believed the applicant's case was resolved based on an outdated EAMS entry, leading to the premature filing of a Declaration of Readiness and subsequent failure to appear at a lien conference. While acknowledging the filing and non-appearance errors, the Board reduced the sanctions from $1,500 to $500, citing the claimant's "honest mistake" in interpreting the EAMS record. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Declaration of ReadinessElectronic Adjudication Management Systemlien claimantSanctions OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardcase in chiefStipulations with Request for AwardPetition to Reopenpermanent disability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,128 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