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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. 08-04-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2005

in Re: Big 8 Food Stores, Ltd.

Big 8 Food Stores, Ltd. (Relator) sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Javier Alvarez (Respondent) after the trial court denied Big 8's motion to compel arbitration with its employee, Maria Marquez (Real Party in Interest). Marquez, an employee injured on the job, sued Big 8 for negligence. Big 8 asserted the existence of a signed arbitration agreement, which Marquez claimed she did not understand and was fraudulently induced into signing. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court found that Marquez had signed the agreement, received benefits under it, and there was no evidence of mental incapacity or fraud. The court also determined that Big 8's business operations involved interstate commerce, making the FAA applicable. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusEmployment AgreementNegligenceFederal Arbitration ActContract LawUnconscionabilityInterstate CommerceTexas LawAppellate Review
References
42
Case No. 14-10-00756-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2011

Otis Lee Harris, Sr. v. Rocking 8 Transportation., Inc.

Otis Lee Harris, Sr. appealed the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc. Harris alleged breach of contract, claiming Rocking 8 failed to provide a promised lumbar support, leading to a debilitating back injury. Rocking 8 asserted an affirmative defense, claiming it was a subscriber to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and therefore protected by its exclusive remedy provision. The appellate court found that Rocking 8 failed to meet its summary judgment burden by not conclusively proving it had workers' compensation insurance at the time Harris's alleged injury occurred. Specifically, the insurance policy provided by Rocking 8 expired before the end of Harris's employment, and the pleadings did not unequivocally establish the injury date within the coverage period. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractAffirmative DefenseExclusive RemedyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeInsurance CoverageEmployment Law
References
17
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ9314776
Regular
May 16, 2018

Ken Sutton vs. San Jose Sharks, Federal Insurance Company

This case involves a professional hockey player's cumulative trauma claim against the San Jose Sharks. The employer sought exemption from California workers' compensation jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(d), arguing the player's last employer, the Ingolstadt Panthers, was exempt. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding, ruling that the Ingolstadt Panthers were not exempt under section 3600.5(c) as the player did not work temporarily in California for them. Consequently, the claim is not exempt under section 3600.5(d), and the WCAB retains jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose SharksFederal Insurance Companycumulative trauma claimLabor Code section 3600.5(d)professional athleteIngolstadt Pantherssubject matter jurisdictionvocational rehabilitationduty days
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. State

Grady Hayes Brown, a long-term employee of the State of Tennessee, filed a claim alleging negligent deprivation of a statutory right. He contended that for 22 years he performed duties of a higher pay grade without additional compensation, citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-30-224. Brown sought remedy through the Tennessee Claims Commission under section 9-8-307(a)(l)(N). The State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that section 8-30-224 did not expressly confer a private right of action against the State. The Claims Commissioner granted the dismissal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that without explicit statutory language granting a private right of action, the Claims Commission lacked jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityStatutory RightsPrivate Right of ActionClaims Commission JurisdictionEmployee CompensationGovernmental LiabilityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissLegislative Intent
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betal Environmental Corp. v. Local Union Number 78, Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

Plaintiff Betal Environmental Corporation filed a labor action against Local Union 78 under section 303 of the LMRA, alleging unfair labor practices, and against York Hunter Construction, Inc. for breach of contract. Betal sought damages from Local 78 and payment from York, along with a declaratory judgment to void a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between Local 78 and York. Defendants moved to dismiss the sixth cause of action (declaratory judgment). The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over direct section 8(e) violations under section 303 of the LMRA, concluding such claims fall under the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction unless involving coercive activity under section 8(b)(4).

Labor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesHot Cargo ClauseCollective Bargaining AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionSection 303 LMRASection 8(e) NLRASection 8(b)(4) NLRANational Labor Relations Board
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vandever v. Voris

This case is an appeal from a compensation order entered by former Deputy Commissioner Voris under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The order concerned Libellant C. M. Vandever, who suffered a 40% permanent partial disability in 1948, which combined with a previous 60% permanent partial disability from 1939, resulted in total permanent disability. The Deputy Commissioner had ordered the employer and its insurance carrier to pay $10,000 for the second injury, with the expectation that the remainder for total permanent incapacity would come from the Special Fund. The Libellant sought payment for total permanent disability, either directly or from the Special Fund. The present Deputy Commissioner moved for a remand, suggesting an error in the previous determination, but this motion was overruled. The central controversy involved the interpretation of section 8(f) and section 44 of the Act, specifically whether these sections applied only to specific member injuries or also to general injuries. The court affirmed the original award, holding that section 8(f) is not limited to specific injuries and that the Libellant is entitled to the balance of compensation for total permanent disability from the Special Fund.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilitySecond Injury FundSpecial FundSubsequent InjuryDisability CompensationWage Earning CapacitySpinal InjuryPrior Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7133410
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

HUGO DIAZ vs. YOUTH CONNECTION OF VENTURA COUNTY, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The administrative law judge had dismissed a lien claimant's lien for failing to timely file a declaration under Labor Code section 4903.8. However, the Board found that section 4903.8, as amended, does not mandate dismissal for pre-2013 liens with untimely declarations. While the lien is not dismissed, the Board noted that the untimely filing could be grounds for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code section 4903.8Mandatory dismissalSenate Bill 863Declaration of perjuryUntimely declarationInvalid lien
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,563 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