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
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randall v. Toll

Petitioner, a senior financial secretary at SUNY Stony Brook, was suspended without pay under Civil Service Law section 75 following charges of misappropriation. He challenged the suspension, arguing it violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying a pre-suspension hearing. The court evaluated the constitutionality of Civil Service Law section 75(3), which permits temporary suspension without pay pending charge determination. It concluded that the state's interest did not justify postponing a hearing, especially since the petitioner had been reassigned from his sensitive role. Consequently, the court vacated the suspension and ordered the petitioner's immediate reinstatement, emphasizing the necessity of a prior hearing for public employee suspensions.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawPublic Employee RightsSuspension Without PayPre-Suspension HearingGovernmental InterestProperty RightsReinstatementMisconduct Charges
References
4
Case No. ADJ10749554
Regular
Nov 06, 2018

APRIL SIMMONS COOK vs. DESERT OASIS HEALTHCARE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over whether defendant's communication with a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) violated Labor Code section 4062.3. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and removal, rescinding the original Findings and Award. The WCAB will return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ. This action is taken to align the decision with the recent en banc opinion in *Suon v. California Dairies* regarding violations of section 4062.3.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code Section 4062.3Qualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney's FeesFindings and AwardEn Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescinded
References
1
Case No. ADJ9869800
Regular
Jun 01, 2018

BOB PETTIT vs. VENTURA REGIONAL SANITATION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amended an earlier decision, affirming the termination of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) and the requirement for a new QME panel due to the defendant's procedural violation. The defendant violated Labor Code section 4062.3(b) by submitting a job description to the QME without serving it on the applicant 20 days prior. While this was not deemed an ex parte communication, the WCAB agreed that a new QME was necessary to preserve the integrity of the medical-legal process. The order for attorney's fees under section 4062.3(h) was rescinded as it specifically applies to ex parte communications.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code section 4062.3ex parte communicationjob descriptionmedical-legal processattorney's feespetition for reconsiderationtermination of QMEsupplemental report
References
6
Case No. ADJ10038732
Regular
Dec 02, 2016

Deborah Matthews vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after an administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered a new Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) panel. The WCJ found the defendant violated Labor Code section 4062.3 by engaging in ex parte communication with the prior QME. The defendant admitted a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3 but argued a new panel was unwarranted due to applicant forfeiture or the communication's insignificance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding no waiver by the applicant and that the communication was not insignificant. The WCAB emphasized that prejudice is not required to obtain a new panel for such violations.

Labor Code 4062.3Ex parte communicationPQME panelPetition for RemovalAggrieved partyWaiverDoctor shoppingFindings of Fact and OpinionWCJAppeals Board
References
6
Case No. ADJ9823214
Regular
Jul 15, 2019

HILDA LOPEZ vs. HIRSCHMAN CLINICAL SERVICES, PC, dba MY SOBER COACH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ had incorrectly found a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) by the defendant for ex parte communication with a QME, when service was simultaneous and thus not ex parte. However, the Board found that the enclosed records likely constituted "information" under section 4062.3(b), requiring 20-day advance service, which the WCJ failed to properly analyze as per the *Suon* precedent. The Board remanded the case for the WCJ to determine the appropriate remedy for this violation, considering the *Suon* factors.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelEx parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3DiscoveryDue processFindings and OrderMedical records
References
2
Case No. ADJ11995067
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

ADELINA PEREZ vs. KYONG AE YUN, CHONG MYON YUN, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Adelina Perez sought removal of a May 9, 2022, Findings & Order (F&O) by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found Dr. Marcel Ponton's medical-legal report inadmissible and ordered his replacement, arguing Dr. Ponton was a treating physician to whom Labor Code section 4062.3 did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the petition as one for reconsideration and found that Dr. Ponton was indeed a treating physician, not a panel-selected medical-legal evaluator, rendering section 4062.3 inapplicable. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted new findings affirming Dr. Ponton's role as a treating physician, and ordered his continuation as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator.

RemovalReconsiderationLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical-legal evaluatorTreating physicianMPNNeuropsychological assessmentTraumatic brain injuryAdmissibility of evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Technologies Communications Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3

This case involves a damage action brought by United Technologies Communication Company (UTCC), formerly General Dynamics Communications Company (GDCC), against Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), under Section 303 of the National Labor Relations Act. UTCC alleged that Local 3 engaged in illegal secondary boycotts and jurisdictional disputes at two New York City sites, One Broadway and Two Broadway, in violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. The court found Local 3 liable, concluding that its members, agents, and executive board supported and ratified unlawful actions, including work stoppages, threats, vandalism, and harassment, aimed at forcing employers to cease business with GDCC and assign work to Local 3 members. While liability was established, the plaintiff's claim for lost sales to potential customers was denied due to insufficient proof of direct causation. The decision concludes the liability phase of the trial, with a second phase to be scheduled for the determination of damages.

Labor Law ViolationSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputeNational Labor Relations ActTaft-Hartley ActUnion LiabilityAgency PrinciplesCollateral EstoppelDamage ActionNon-Jury Trial
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kipbea Baking Co. v. Strauss

Plaintiff employer sues two unions, Local 802 and Local 3, for $250,000 in damages under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, alleging breaches of collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiff, Kipbea Baking Co., ceased baking operations, leading to picketing by Local 3 and a refusal by Local 802's drivers to cross the picket line, which the plaintiff claims caused business harm. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata from a prior state court action and lack of breach of contract claims, asserting exclusive NLRB jurisdiction. The court rejected the res judicata and exclusive jurisdiction arguments, but found the complaint failed to adequately allege specific breaches of contract under Section 301. The court indicated that the acts described might constitute violations under Section 303 of the Act (secondary boycott activities) and dismissed the complaint, granting leave for the plaintiff to amend to allege jurisdiction under Section 303.

Collective BargainingLabor-Management Relations ActSection 301Section 303Unfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottRes JudicataJurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 4,713 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