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

Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff John J. Fonseca filed a pro se complaint alleging a conspiracy to violate his civil rights and deny him long-term disability and pension benefits against numerous defendants. This action follows a history of prior lawsuits by Fonseca, which were largely unsuccessful. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the current complaint based on principles of res judicata, a prior settlement release, sovereign immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity, while denying motions for Rule 11 sanctions against Fonseca and granting a motion to set aside default for Olean Medical Group. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the complaint against all defendants and ordering judgment in their favor, thereby affirming the dismissal of plaintiff's case on legal grounds.

Res JudicataCollateral EstoppelSovereign ImmunityEleventh Amendment ImmunityERISA ClaimsCivil Rights ViolationsRule 11 SanctionsMotion to DismissEntry of DefaultDisability Benefits Claims
References
72
Case No. ADJ7069357
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

CHERYL MCMILLIN vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision and imposed $300 in sanctions against defendant's attorney and law firm. The sanctions were for failing to comply with procedural rules, including improper citation practices and impugning the applicant's attorney. The attorney apologized but did not fully address all procedural violations. The Board adopted the judge's report and recommendation in its decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJPetitionObjection to Sanctionszealous representationunpublished case
References
0
Case No. ADJ332528 (AHM 0104042)
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

ERNEST DANIELS vs. PIEDMONT ENGINEERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $250.00 sanction against the State Compensation Insurance Fund and its attorney, Maria Frias Callejas. This sanction was issued due to their failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions and their violation of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure. No timely objection demonstrating good cause was filed. Consequently, they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the sanction to the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsState Compensation Insurance FundMaria Frias CallejasRules of Practice and ProcedureNotice of IntentionGood CauseTimely ResponseJoint and Several LiabilityAttorney for Defendant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2001

Daniel v. Safir

Plaintiff Elridge Daniel, Jr., proceeding pro se, initiated a civil rights lawsuit alleging constitutional violations stemming from his 1995 arrest and criminal harassment prosecution. The action named several defendants, including judicial officers, private attorneys, a law firm, and corporations. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold recommended dismissing claims against all defendants for reasons such as judicial immunity for judges and law clerks, lack of state action for private entities, and inadmissibility of criminal statutes as private rights of action. District Judge Nina Gershon adopted this report entirely, granting motions to dismiss all federal claims against most defendants with prejudice, and state law claims against Robert Friedman without prejudice. All motions for sanctions by both parties were also denied.

Civil RightsPro Se LitigantMotion to DismissJudicial ImmunityState Action DoctrineEleventh AmendmentConspiracy ClaimsPrivate ActorsSupplemental JurisdictionRule 11 Sanctions
References
55
Case No. ADJ6620175
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

CAMELLA MORA GONZALEZ vs. KAY'S CLEANERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is imposing sanctions under Labor Code § 5813 against Innovative Medical Management and lien claimant Priority Care Medical Transportation for $1,000.00, jointly and severally. Additionally, sanctions of $250.00 are imposed against Louis Heard, the lien claimant's hearing representative. These sanctions were ordered due to a failure to object to a previously issued notice of intention, following the Board's affirmation of the dismissal of the lien claim. The sanctioned parties did not provide any written objection demonstrating good cause to avoid the sanctions.

Labor Code § 5813SanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimDismissalPriority Care Medical TransportationInnovative Medical ManagementLouis HeardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHearing Representative
References
0
Case No. 95CV656
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2004

Independent Living Aids, Inc. v. Maxi-Aids, Inc.

This case involves plaintiffs Independent Living Aids, Inc. and Marvin Sandler suing Maxi-Aids, Inc. and others for trademark infringement. A preliminary injunction was issued in April 2002, prohibiting defendants from using "Independent Living Aids." The plaintiffs moved to hold defendants in contempt for violating this injunction, specifically regarding search engine notifications and the use of the phrase on their "Affiliate Corner" page, and also for using the lower-case version of the phrase. Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended finding contempt for the "Affiliate Corner" use and imposing a $502.80 compensatory sanction, but denied contempt for search engine notification and lower-case usage. Judge Spatt adopted Judge Lindsay's report and recommendation in its entirety, affirmed the $502.80 sanction, and denied the plaintiffs' request for higher coercive sanctions and attorney's fees, finding the defendants' non-compliance was not willful and compliance had since occurred.

ContemptTrademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionSanctionsCompensatory DamagesCoercive SanctionsAttorney's FeesCivil ProcedureSearch EnginesIntellectual Property
References
30
Case No. ADJ962796 (ANA 0403408)
Regular
Aug 26, 2015

JAMES RODNEY RICHARD vs. HOUSTON ASTROS

Attorneys for both the applicant and defendant were sanctioned $50.00 each for failing to follow the Board's explicit instructions. The attorneys improperly filed a stipulation for appellate attorney's fees with a district office instead of the Office of Commissioners. This oversight led to an inaccurate award and necessitated further Board action. While acknowledging the attorneys' apologies and assurances of future compliance, the Board imposed the minimal sanction due to the clear disregard of its directives.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsAppellate Attorney's FeesStipulationNotice of IntentionDistrict OfficeOffice of CommissionersLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Amended Award
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. ADJ593283 (AHM 0117827) ADJ1747148 (AHM 0117828) ADJ196184 (AHM 0117826)
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DEBORAH ARRIOLA-LARA vs. NORDSTROMS; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board denied Nordstrom's Petition for Removal seeking to overturn an order allowing applicant's supplemental deposition at her attorney's office. The Board found the petition lacked merit. However, the Board sua sponte granted removal on the limited issue of sanctions against Nordstrom's counsel. This action stems from counsel's inclusion of numerous extraneous and previously filed documents in their 114-page petition, constituting a violation of procedural rules and potentially a frivolous tactic warranting sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental DepositionDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 2025.250Good CauseWCAB Rule 10842(c)Labor Code Section 5813Bad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
4
Case No. ADJ3942275 (LAO 0879499) ADJ4411298 (LAO 0879500)
Regular
Jul 12, 2012

JESUS RODRIGO GUZMAN vs. CHAMPION ARROWHEAD BRASS PRODUCTS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves sanctions imposed against Erika Campos and Fred F. Hafezi, M.D., for bad faith actions and tactics. They are jointly and severally sanctioned $1,000.00 payable to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Sanctionable conduct included a misdated proof of service and misstatements of fact in a petition, as detailed in the WCJ's report. Neither Campos nor Hafezi responded to the Board's notice of intent to sanction.

SanctionsLabor Code section 5813Opinion and Decision After RemovalMisstatements of factBad faith actionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJProof of servicePetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Issue Sanctions
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,227 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