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. ADJ7628834
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

DAVID GUINDON vs. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their arguments regarding industrial injury stipulations and utilization review objections to be factually inaccurate and misleading. The WCAB also granted removal on its own motion to announce its intention to sanction the defendant's counsel, Corey A. Ingber and Ingber & Weinberg, LLP, for presenting a petition with substantial misrepresentations and frivolous arguments. The WCAB found the administrative law judge's award of a Sleep Number adjustable bed to be equitable and legally correct, noting the defendant's delaying tactics. Sanctions will be imposed unless counsel shows good cause otherwise.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalSanctionsLabor Code Section 4062Utilization ReviewStipulationMedical NecessityNurse Case ManagerPrimary Treating Physician
References
4
Case No. ADJ1337418 (GOL 0091701) ADJ850408 (GOL 0091702)
Regular
May 26, 2009

DAWAYNE MOGENSEN vs. SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER DISTRICT, ACWA/JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY

This case concerns an applicant's claim for reimbursement for an orthopedic bed following a stipulated award for future medical treatment for industrial neck and back injuries. The applicant's treating physician supported the need for the bed for pain relief and improved sleep. However, the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) opined that there was no evidence-based research to support the medical necessity of such a bed, which the majority decision followed. The dissenting opinion argues the AME's opinion was not substantial evidence as it was based on a legally incorrect premise that beds are never compensable, and that the treating physician's recommendation, coupled with the absence of a negative guideline, should have been sufficient.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDawayne MogensenSanta Ynez River Water DistrictACWA/Joint Powers Insurance AuthorityADJ1337418ADJ850408Petition for ReconsiderationFuture Medical TreatmentOrthopedic BedDr. Richard Kahmann
References
10
Case No. ADJ6527507
Regular
Oct 18, 2010

Wayne Moore vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ improperly substituted his medical judgment for the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) regarding the applicant's industrial sleep disturbance. The WCJ's finding of no industrial sleep impairment, despite the QME's opinion indicating such, was deemed erroneous. The Board rescinded the original award and remanded the case for a new rating that incorporates the QME's findings on sleep disturbance. Additionally, the WCJ must correct an identified occupational group number error in future rating calculations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWayne MooreEast Bay Municipal Utility DistrictAthens Administratorsmachinist maintenance workermachinistmachinist maintenancepermanent disabilityapportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02607 [204 AD3d 1297]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Matter of Perez v. Bed, Bath & Beyond

This case concerns an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a section 32 waiver agreement. Claimant Jose Perez sought to withdraw from the agreement, but the Board deemed his request untimely. However, the Board later amended its decision to allow 90 days for parties to negotiate a new agreement clarifying inconsistencies in the Medicare Set-Aside terms. The employer and its carrier appealed this amended decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was interlocutory and not a final resolution, thus not ripe for immediate appellate review.

Workers' Compensation LawSection 32 AgreementWaiver AgreementMedicare Set-AsideMSA AnnuityInterlocutory DecisionAppeal DismissedUntimely WithdrawalBoard ReviewRecord Development
References
5
Case No. ADJ8332402, ADJ8336415
Regular
Oct 08, 2018

NESABEL DUMON vs. BED, BATH & BEYOND, ARCH INSURANCE

This case involves Nesabel Dumon's application for workers' compensation benefits against Bed, Bath & Beyond and Arch Insurance. The Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding the WCJ's decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Consequently, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENYWCJ reportadopted and incorporatedNESABEL DUMONBED BATH & BEYONDARCH INSURANCEADJ8332402ADJ8336415
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Number Workers Co. v. New Dimensions in Education, Inc.

This action for declaratory relief was initiated by The Number Workers Company, Inc. to declare it is not infringing copyrights, interfering with contracts, or engaging in unfair competition, and that the defendant is estopped from asserting such claims. The defendant subsequently filed a similar action in the Eastern District of New York, including Dr. Bernard Kauderer, the plaintiff's president. The plaintiff moved for an injunction against the Eastern District case, while the defendant cross-moved for a stay of this action, arguing proper venue in the Eastern District. The court denied the plaintiff's injunction motion and granted the defendant's motion to stay this action, reasoning that all issues could be resolved in the Eastern District case without inconvenience.

Declaratory ReliefCopyright InfringementUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceVenue DisputeInjunction DeniedStay GrantedPriority RuleBalance of ConvenienceEastern District of New York
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 140, Bedding, Curtain & Drapery Workers Union, United Furniture Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought a temporary injunction against Local 140, a labor union, under Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act. The dispute arose after Sealy, Inc. revoked a franchise, leading to the discharge of employees from Sealy Brooklyn. These former employees, represented by Local 140, began picketing a Sealy New York showroom, demanding their jobs back. The NLRB petitioner argued that an object of the picketing was to force recognition of Local 140 as a bargaining agent, constituting an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(7)(C). However, the court found insufficient evidence to conclude that recognition was the primary objective of the picketing. Instead, it determined that the main purpose was to pressure Sealy to rehire the discharged employees. Therefore, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations BoardTemporary InjunctionPicketingUnion OrganizingUnfair Labor PracticeSection 10(l)Recognition PicketingCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Discharge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case, presided over by District Judge Spatt, addresses post-trial motions concerning attorney's fees and damages following a class action. Initially, plaintiffs sued employer Robert Abbey, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) (settled for $110,000) and both the employer and Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of fair representation. After class decertification, the claims of fourteen plaintiffs against the Union went to a jury, which found the Union liable for breaching its duty of fair representation and awarded compensatory damages to eight of them. The Court denied the Union's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but vacated the jury's compensatory damage award, instead granting nominal damages of $1 to each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs due to lack of evidentiary support for the monetary award. The Court also determined that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to recover attorney's fees for the Union's breach of duty of fair representation, calculating these fees based on reasonable hours and rates, and awarded specific amounts to the law firms Hall & Sloan ($4,775.00) and Davis & Eisenberg ($42,475.00), for a total of $47,250.00. Additionally, the Court awarded $1,177.15 in costs and denied the plaintiffs' application for an award of prejudgment interest.

Attorney's FeesNominal DamagesBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActSettlementJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsLodestar MethodClass Action Decertification
References
36
Case No. ADJ2000734
Regular
Apr 14, 2011

ESTELA OREGON (Deceased), ARMANDO SOTELO, et al vs. ENGLANDER TUALATIN SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC., & COMMERCE & INDUSTRY/AIG CLAIM SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Estela Oregon (Deceased) v. Englander Tualatin Sleep Products, Inc. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Additionally, the petitioner was admonished for submitting new documents not presented at trial.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDeny ReconsiderationNew DocumentsNot Introduced in EvidenceTrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeceased ApplicantDefendant InsurerAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 518 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