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. ADJ6761550, ADJ6761551
Regular
Dec 14, 2010

JUAN SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By CAMBRIDGE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding applicant Juan Sanchez totally and permanently disabled. This disability stemmed from a combination of industrial injuries, including a stroke, which qualified for a conclusive presumption of total disability under Labor Code section 4662(d). The defendant City of Santa Clara had argued for apportionment of this disability based on prior awards and the distinct nature of the current injuries. However, the Board found that the conclusive presumption of total disability under section 4662 precluded apportionment. The concurring opinion agreed with the outcome but differed on the strict interpretation of unapportionability, asserting that apportionment might be possible in other section 4662 cases if properly proven.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundCity of Santa Clarapermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662incurable mental incapacitystrokecumulative injuryspecific injuryapportionment
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. ADJ7449576
Regular
May 11, 2016

MANNY WINNINGHAM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

This case concerns an applicant seeking total permanent disability benefits based on a brain injury. The applicant argued for conclusive total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4) due to permanent mental incapacity. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that while the applicant suffered serious psychiatric impairments leading to overall total disability, the specific cognitive impairments did not meet the threshold for the *conclusive* presumption of total disability under section 4662(a)(4). Therefore, apportionment was still applicable, and the previous award of $84\%$ permanent disability was upheld.

Permanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662(a)(4)Conclusive presumptionApportionmentBrain injuryPermanent mental incapacityGlobal Assessment of Functioning ScaleCognitive impairmentPsychiatric impairmentCorrectional officer
References
1
Case No. ADJ2262922 (SRO 0041418)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

DEBBIE LEVINE vs. STARBUCKS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a permanent disability rating of 42%, arguing the vocational expert's assessment of diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) was rebutted and that Labor Code section 4662 should apply for total disability. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the applicant failed to present substantial evidence to rebut the DFEC, as she never sought employment and her vocational expert's opinion was largely attributed to economic factors. Furthermore, the Board found no basis for applying Labor Code section 4662, as the applicant's alleged permanent total disability was not supported by persuasive medical or vocational evidence. The applicant's unsupported claim of zero earning capacity was contradicted by medical opinions.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 PDRSOgilvie IOgilvie IIrebuttalLabor Code section 4662permanent total disabilityvocational expertsubstantial evidenceAME
References
5
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

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,800 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