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. ADJ9020574
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

Antonio Hernandez vs. TS STAFFING SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE in Liquidation, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES (Claims Administrator)

This case concerns an applicant seeking reconsideration of a permanent disability award in a workers' compensation claim. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) apportioned the applicant's permanent disability based on Labor Code Section 4663, which the applicant argued was incorrect. The applicant contended that Section 4664(b) should have applied due to a prior award, requiring a different apportionment method. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the applicant failed to establish the necessary prerequisites for Section 4664(b) apportionment. Specifically, the prior award lacked sufficient detail regarding the basis of its rating, and medical opinions attempting to apply Section 4664(b) were not based on substantial medical evidence.

Labor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664(b)apportionmentpermanent disabilitysubstantial medical evidenceAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)prior awardoverlapfactors of disability
References
10
Case No. ADJ3416937 (SRO 0141443) ADJ4476347 (SRO 0118020)
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

TIMOTHY ROBINSON vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns apportionment of permanent disability for an injured correctional officer. The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his neck, resulting in a 12% permanent disability after initial apportionment. The WCJ calculated a total permanent disability of 43%, then apportioned 20% to non-industrial factors under Labor Code section 4663. Further apportionment occurred for a prior low back injury under Labor Code section 4664, using a converted rating from the old schedule to the new AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding no prohibition against applying both section 4663 and section 4664 apportionment, and deeming the prior injury properly converted and subtracted. A dissenting opinion argued that the older rating schedule's "overlap" concept is incompatible with the current AMA Guides method, and that the defendant failed to prove overlap for the prior injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of SonomaTimothy RobinsonCorrectional OfficerIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664
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

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
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. GRO 0028123, GRO 0028394
Significant
Feb 27, 2006

Eric Pasquotto, Applicant vs. Hayward Lumber, Connecticut Indemnity Insurance Company, and Athens Administrators (Adjusting Agent)

This case holds that an order approving a compromise and release agreement is not a 'prior award of permanent disability' under Labor Code section 4664(b), but evidence from the prior injury may still be relevant for apportionment under section 4663. It also affirms that medical rehabilitation from a prior disability remains a viable concept under section 4663.

SB 899ApportionmentCompromise and ReleasePrior AwardPermanent DisabilityMedical RehabilitationOther FactorsLabor Code Sections 4663 and 4664En Banc DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 3,811 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