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. ADJ1568179 (BAK 0150495)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SHARON DEROSSETT vs. KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; SELF INSURED SCHOOLS BAKERSFIELD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, finding the administrative law judge erred in applying the 1997 disability rating schedule. The applicant sustained a low back injury in 2004, and the central issue is which permanent disability rating schedule applies given the injury date and subsequent medical reports. The Board found that neither the Labor Code section 4061 notice exception nor a clear "indication of permanent disability" exception under the 2005 schedule was definitively met by the October 27, 2004 report. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for further development of the record to determine the correct schedule and rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKern High School DistrictPermanent Disability2005 Schedule1997 ScheduleLabor Code Section 4660(d)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating Physician
References
8
Case No. SDO 0340101
Regular
Sep 10, 2007

RITA CORDOVA vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the application of the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) over the older 1997 PDRS for an applicant injured in 2004. The applicant argued that exceptions in Labor Code section 4660(d) should trigger the 1997 schedule, primarily based on a physician's report predating the schedule change. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding that recent appellate decisions clarified that the older schedule only applies if a report indicating permanent disability exists prior to January 1, 2005, and the employer was not required to provide notice under Labor Code section 4061 before that date. Therefore, the 2005 PDRS was correctly applied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code section 4660(d)Labor Code section 4061Medical-legal reportTreating physician's reportPermanent and stationary statusTemporary disability indemnityIndustrial injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1998

Cataudella v. Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc.

Plaintiff Alfred Cataudella sought damages for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc., and Elm Management Co. moved for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, which was initially granted but later denied by the Supreme Court upon the plaintiffs' successful motion for renewal and reargument. On appeal, the higher court modified the lower court's decision, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the plaintiff's injuries were not from an elevation-related hazard. Consequently, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, thus effectively granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Furthermore, the third-party defendant Walcat Plumbing and Heating Corp.'s motion to vacate an order of default was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppealLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardDefault JudgmentVacate DefaultProcedural LawNew York LawAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02008 [237 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. Section II Inc.

Plaintiff Kyle Hartrum, an employee of Electronic Service Solutions, Inc. (ESS), sustained severe arm lacerations while removing communications equipment from a building roof owned by Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. The accident occurred when a piece of sheet metal being hand-hoisted swung and struck him. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, granting Hartrum summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Monte Housing, SBA Site Management, LLC, Flo TV Incorporated, and KMB Design Group, LLC. The court also dismissed Hartrum's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against all defendants and granted several contractual indemnity claims among the parties, including Montefiore, SBA, Flo, KMB, and ESS.

Labor Law § 240(1) LiabilitySafe Place to WorkSummary Judgment GrantContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site AccidentHoisting SafetyAppellate Division ReviewLessor/Sublessor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkNegligence Dismissal
References
12
Case No. ADJ7257085
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

RAMON MACIAS vs. SOUTHWIRE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns an applicant claiming back, hip, and ankle injury from May 1, 2009, who reported it during an exit interview on March 22, 2010, after receiving notice of termination. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the trial judge's findings based on parties' stipulations that the injury was reported post-termination without notice to the employer beforehand. The Board found that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) bars claims filed after notice of termination unless specific exceptions apply, and the applicant's reported injury date predates termination notice. The issue of potential exceptions under section 3600(a)(10) remains reserved for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimExit interviewActual notice of terminationStipulationsWCABReconsideration deniedPreponderance of evidenceExceptions to denialCompensable injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Ornellas v. Roger Maffei, Inc.

The claimant injured his neck in 1970, and despite medical bills being paid by the carrier, no compensation was issued due to a lack of disability exceeding seven days. The case was closed in 1973 after a Referee found no causal link between a subsequent laminectomy and the initial injury. In 1977, a new medical bill prompted the Workers’ Compensation Board to reopen the case, examining liability under Workers' Compensation Law sections 123 and 25-a. Both a Referee and the Board initially found these sections inapplicable. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision regarding section 123 but reversed its finding on section 25-a, ruling the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable, and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this determination.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened CasesStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 123Medical Expense LiabilityCausationDisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewittes & Sons v. United Furniture Workers of America

Plaintiffs, members of a copartnership, initiated an action against defendant-unions seeking damages for the alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement's "no strike" clause. The defendants moved for a stay of the trial pending arbitration, citing the United States Arbitration Act. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the arbitration clause did not cover damage claims and that Section 1 of the Arbitration Act, which excludes certain employment contracts, should apply to the entire Act, thereby precluding a stay. The court found that the broad language of the arbitration clause encompassed claims for damages arising from a breach of the no-strike pledge. Furthermore, the court clarified that while the exception in Section 1 of the Arbitration Act applies to the entire Act, a collective bargaining agreement is not considered a "contract of employment" in the context of this exception. Consequently, the motion for a stay was granted, promoting arbitration as a means for peaceful labor dispute resolution.

Labor-Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClauseStay of ProceedingsContract of EmploymentInterstate CommerceJudicial InterpretationFederal Court
References
15
Case No. ADJ1052643 (VNO 0508995)
Regular
Oct 14, 2008

MARIA KUROSE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns the applicable permanent disability schedule for applicant Maria Kurose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the 1997 Schedule applied. The Board found that the defendant was obligated to provide Labor Code Section 4061 notice prior to January 1, 2005, due to temporary disability payments made in 2004, triggering the 1997 Schedule exception.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Schedule1997 Schedule2005 ScheduleLabor Code section 4660(d)treating physician reportcomprehensive medical-legal reportLabor Code section 4061 noticetemporary disability indemnitybilateral carpal tunnel
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,424 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