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. ADJ16491268; ADJ15884384; ADJ16161110; ADJ16161057; ADJ16161093; ADJ15760386; ADJ18891808; ADJ19153721; ADJ16116250
Significant

Steve Hoddinott, et al. vs. Bravo Security Services, Inc.; National Liability Fire Ins. Co., administered by Biberk Business Insurance, et al.

The Appeals Board issued a notice to set a status conference to assist the parties in further discussing their stipulations with a designated hearing officer.

En BancRemovalStipulationSupplemental BriefingStatus ConferenceHearing OfficerDeputy CommissionerAppeals BoardAdjudication NumbersBravo Security Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. ADJ10302342 ADJ10302315
Regular
Oct 19, 2016

ANGELICA GOMEZ vs. BEST WESTERN NEWPORT MESA INN, EMPLOYERS COMPSENATION, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's decision to cancel a settlement conference and schedule a status conference. The defendant contested this, believing the cancellation was unnecessary and the status conference inappropriate. The WCJ recommended denial, stating the defendant failed to demonstrate the required prejudice. The Board agreed, concluding the WCJ's actions were reasonable for resolving a dispute over attorney deposition fees.

Petition for RemovalWCJMandatory Settlement ConferenceStatus ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessLabor Code section 5710deposition feessubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmWCAB
References
2
Case No. ADJ659082 (VNO 0320883) ADJ1 865687 (VNO 0550954) ADJ2289733 (VNO 0554994) ADJ3119126 (VNO 0554995) ADJ4554289 (VNO 0554996)
Regular
Mar 01, 2016

EVERARDO RODRIGUEZ vs. THE STANLEY WORKS/HOME DÉCOR; TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result, and reconsideration would be inadequate. The Board found, adopting the WCJ's reasoning, that the defendant failed to demonstrate such prejudice. The WCJ clarified that continuing the matter to another priority conference, which is a type of status conference, did not cause harm as the defendant's request for a "normal status conference" was essentially granted.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationPriority ConferenceStatus ConferenceAdministrative Law JudgeDiscoveryMaterial Handler
References
2
Case No. ADJ4639631 (MON 0327478)
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

MARY JONES vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK, CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that the judge improperly continued the case to trial after a status conference without defendant's agreement. The Board rescinded the judge's order, stating that a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) is required after a status conference unless parties agree otherwise. The case is returned for further proceedings, including setting a new MSC, with discovery remaining open to allow the defendant to complete its investigation.

Petition for RemovalWCJStatus ConferenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryOff CalendarLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)WCAB Rule 10301(dd)Pretrial Conference StatementDeclarations of Readiness to Proceed
References
2
Case No. ADJ1906750 (OAK 0339121) ADJ7499032
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

MARY FISHER vs. MET LIFE INSURANCE, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal to rescind the WCJ's order closing discovery and continuing the case to trial. The WCJ erred by converting a status conference into a mandatory settlement conference without adequate notice to the applicant, thereby unfairly precluding her from obtaining a required vocational expert report. Since the applicant did not expect discovery to close at the initial status conference, the Appeals Board returned the matter for a proper MSC and further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalVocational expert reportMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery closureIndustrial injuryLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Grupe Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code section 5703(j)Due diligenceStatus conference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. 91-CV-324; 92-CV-569
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Boening Bros.

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund sought to audit the payroll records of contributing employers Boening Brothers, Inc. and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. The employers refused, arguing they were not explicitly bound by audit provisions. The Court ruled that by contributing to the multiemployer plan under collective bargaining agreements, the employers implicitly assented to the Fund's governing documents, which include the right to audit. Citing precedents, the Court found the audit necessary to ensure proper contributions and plan integrity, upholding the Fund's right to audit all payroll records, including non-bargaining unit employees. However, the Court denied the Fund's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of bad faith by the defendants and the unsettled nature of the legal issue at the time.

ERISAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanPayroll AuditCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsPlan AdministrationFiduciary Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1995

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Fratto Curbing Co.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund seeking a default judgment against Fratto Curbing Co., Inc. for delinquent pension fund contributions. Fratto failed to respond to the complaint after being served, leading to an entry of default by the Clerk of the Court. The court granted the Teamsters' motion for default judgment, finding Fratto liable for delinquent contributions, audit fees, interest, and attorney's fees. The decision also clarified the calculation of liquidated damages under ERISA, stating that the fund is entitled to the greater of double interest or the plan's liquidated damages, but not both, thus reducing the total award. The final judgment was entered against Fratto in the amount of $5,687.23, along with post-judgment interest.

ERISAPension ContributionsDefault JudgmentDelinquent PaymentsCollective BargainingEmployee BenefitsLiquidated Damages CalculationAttorney's FeesFederal CourtContractual Obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,951 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