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. ADJ3957329 (OAK 0162600) ADJ621097 (OAK 0183630)
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

JUDITH KRAFT vs. CORREY JAMESTOWN, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, FACILITY SYSTEMS, INC., BROADSPIRE CONCORD

Here's a summary for a lawyer in maximum four sentences: Hartford Insurance sought removal of an order requiring it to administer the applicant's future medical award for all body parts. Hartford argued this would cause irreparable harm by potentially barring reimbursement from CIGA for neck injury treatment, for which Hartford claims no current liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that potential prejudice to Hartford was outweighed by applicant's need for a single administrator and the judge's discretion to assign administration pending adjudication of neck injury liability. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing Hartford faces substantial prejudice and potential liability for an injury it did not insure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLow BackLeft AnkleNeckDistrict ManagerAccount Executive
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Fine, Clin & Anderson, P. C.

The plaintiff, injured at a construction site in 1986, retained the defendant law firm to pursue all legal remedies. However, the firm limited its representation to workers' compensation matters, leading to the expiration of the statute of limitations for potential third-party claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their retainer was limited and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation. The court denied the motion, ruling that a law firm has an affirmative duty to inform clients about the full scope of representation limitations and potential alternative claims, even with a limited retainer. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to demonstrate potential damages under the Labor Law, making the question of malpractice a factual issue.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationRetainer AgreementScope of RepresentationDuty to AdviseThird-Party ClaimsStatute of LimitationsLabor LawSummary JudgmentAttorney-Client Relationship
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Thea T.

The Suffolk County Attorney's Office, on behalf of Suffolk County Child Protective Services, filed an application seeking an order to direct the Law Guardian to permit a third interview of 11-year-old Thea T., who alleges sexual abuse by her father. The County also sought the Law Guardian's cooperation with pretrial preparation. The Law Guardian opposed the request for a third interview, citing potential harm to the child, who had already undergone two previous interviews. The court applied a two-prong test, weighing the County's asserted need against the potential harm to the child. Finding the County's justification for a third interview conclusory and lacking an articulable basis, and balancing this against the potential for intimidation and embarrassment to the child, the court denied both applications.

Child Protective ServicesChild InterviewLaw Guardian RoleFamily Court ActDiscovery DisputePretrial PreparationChild WelfareVulnerable WitnessEvidentiary StandardBalancing Test
References
3
Case No. ADJ6959869
Regular
Nov 12, 2013

DAVID BODIN vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that dismissed "Entertainment Partners" as a party defendant with prejudice. The applicant sought to have the dismissal be without prejudice to allow for potential rejoining of the defendant. The Board agreed with the judge's recommendation to amend the dismissal order. Therefore, Entertainment Partners is dismissed without prejudice, allowing the applicant to potentially rejoin them if further discovery warrants.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Party DefendantsCumulative Trauma InjuryDismissal Without PrejudiceFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeRejoin Defendant
References
3
Case No. LAO 0878539
Regular
Oct 09, 2007

GONZALO BETANCOURT vs. SANTA PALM CAR WASH, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the trial judge's order that penalized the defendant for untimely or inadequate benefit payments. The Board found that the defendant was not afforded due process, as the order imposing penalties was issued without a hearing and potentially misinterpreted the judge's intent. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to address adequacy and potential penalties properly.

Compromise and ReleaseIllegible documentNotice of IntentionPenaltiesDue processReconsiderationRescindReturn to trial levelAdequacy of settlementPolicy and Procedure Manual
References
1
Case No. ADJ3928171
Regular
Dec 14, 2012

DAVID PAEZ vs. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.

This case involves a lien claimant, Safety Works, Inc., petitioning for reconsideration of a potential sanction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not filed against a final order. The WCJ had merely indicated a potential notice of intention to sanction, not a final decision. The Board admonished Safety Works against filing premature petitions and highlighted upcoming changes to Labor Code section 4907 concerning lien representatives.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedSanctionsNotice of Intention to SanctionFinal OrderWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5900Administrative Law Judge
References
2
Case No. ADJ9076336
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

BOBBIETTE BROWN vs. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded an interim discovery order. This order compelled the defendant to produce redacted disciplinary write-ups by four supervisors for the preceding three years. The Board found the request untimely, raised for the first time at a mandatory settlement conference without prior diligent pursuit, and potentially overbroad. Further, the Board was concerned about potential privacy violations and prejudice to unidentifiable disciplined employees.

Petition for RemovalInterim Discovery OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDisciplinary Write-upsPrivacy RightsFishing ExpeditionLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Cumulative Psychiatric InjuryGood Faith Personnel ActionQualified Medical Evaluator
References
3
Case No. ADJ9200265
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR GARCIA vs. LAKESIDE VILLAS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) due to defective service on the applicant. The Board also found potential procedural errors regarding the representation of the applicant by a non-attorney from a law firm. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, as the applicant had since dismissed his attorney, complicating potential cures for the alleged Rule 10773(b) violation.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseNotice of Representation by Non-Attorneydefective servicetimely filingRule 10773(b)law firm employeewalk-through C&Rrescinded orderreturn to trial level
References
4
Case No. ADJ2902954; ADJ2715753
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

DONALD GREEN vs. COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration and granted removal on its own motion. It affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's order setting aside a prior lien allowance due to potential service and ex parte communication issues. The matter was returned to the trial level for reassignment to a new judge to address outstanding issues, including proper service, ex parte communication, the propriety of setting aside the lien order, and potential sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationRemovalOrder Setting AsideEx parte communicationProper serviceNotice of Intent to Allow LienAmended Order Allowing LienSubstituted counsel
References
1
Case No. ADJ3475275 (ANA 0386298) ADJ1639465 (ANA 0386296)
Regular
Jun 15, 2016

MARIO NARVAEZ vs. WALDEN STRUCTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a dismissal order against lien claimant Juan Carlos Vazquez. The dismissal was due to his representative's failure to appear at a lien trial, citing excusable neglect based on a sworn declaration of a calendaring error. However, the Board noted that this relief does not preclude potential sanctions against the lien claimant and representative for their non-appearance. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including potential sanctions and attorney's fees.

Lien ClaimsNon-AppearanceLien ConferenceLien TrialPetition for ReconsiderationRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelSanctionsAttorney's FeesCosts
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,757 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