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. 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 Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted new findings affirming Dr.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
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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01310 [169 AD3d 549]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Samantha F. (Edwin F.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which found that respondent Edwin F. sexually abused the eldest child and derivatively neglected his other children. The appeal was found to be properly taken from an appealable order. The court determined that the finding of sexual abuse was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the child's detailed out-of-court statements corroborated by the mother's testimony, a sibling's statements, and expert testimony. The sexual abuse also supported the finding of derivative neglect, as it demonstrated the respondent's defective understanding of parental obligations, placing other children at substantial risk.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectAppellate ReviewFamily Court ProceedingsCorroborated TestimonyExpert Witness TestimonyParental ObligationsRisk AssessmentChild Protection Services
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,174 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