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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiffs Carolina Lara and her father Marino Lara sued the City of New York and its contractor Graham-Windham for negligent foster care, alleging Carolina was sexually abused while placed by Graham-Windham. The City moved for summary judgment, asserting statutory immunity under Social Services Law 419, common-law immunity for discretionary acts, and non-compliance with General Municipal Law 50-h due to Carolina's failure to appear for a comptroller's examination. Graham-Windham also moved for summary judgment based on statutory immunity. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding it immune from liability due to both statutory and common-law protections and Carolina's non-compliance. However, Graham-Windham's motion for summary judgment was denied, as questions of fact remained regarding whether its actions constituted gross negligence or a lack of good faith, particularly concerning Carolina's sleeping arrangements and living conditions.

Child Protective ServicesFoster Care NegligenceStatutory ImmunitySummary JudgmentGross NegligenceWillful MisconductGovernmental ImmunityQualified ImmunityChild AbuseSexual Abuse
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The claimant, an injured truck driver, received workers' compensation benefits from Hartford Insurance Group following an accident. Hartford, without strict compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 29, subd 2, regarding notice by personal service or registered mail and specific statutory language, settled its subrogation claim with Geico for $600. The claimant subsequently moved to set aside this settlement, arguing its invalidity due to Hartford's non-compliance with statutory assignment prerequisites. The court ruled that Hartford's failure to adhere strictly to the statute meant there was no valid assignment of the claim. Consequently, the claimant's motion to set aside the settlement was granted.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionSubrogationSettlement DisputeStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsAssignment of ClaimEmployee RightsInsurance CarrierWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
3
Case No. 2023-03-8195
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The employee, Jerry R. Burkes, appealed the trial court's denial of extraordinary benefits after sustaining a compensable knee injury while working for Sysco Knoxville, LLC. Although the trial court awarded increased general benefits, it denied the extraordinary benefits because Burkes failed to submit a Physician Certification Form, a statutory requirement. On appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that strict compliance with statutory mandates for extraordinary benefits, particularly the Physician Certification Form, is necessary and substantial compliance is insufficient. The Board concluded that the absence of the required form was fatal to the employee's claim for extraordinary benefits. Consequently, the trial court's denial of extraordinary benefits was affirmed, and the order was certified as final.

Extraordinary BenefitsPermanent DisabilityKnee InjuryPhysician Certification FormSubstantial ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewMedical ImpairmentPost-Hearing MotionResignation
References
4
Case No. CR-007805-25BX
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The case addresses whether the 2025 amendments to Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defining 'due diligence' for discovery, apply to a certificate of compliance filed before the amendments' effective date. The defendant, charged with driving while intoxicated, moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument due to the prosecution's failure to provide Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) attachments as ordered by the court. The court determined that the 2025 amendments are procedural and remedial, thus applying to pending criminal actions regardless of when the certificate of compliance was filed. Applying the 2025 due diligence standard, the court found the People failed to exercise due diligence by making perfunctory efforts, missing statutory deadlines, delaying in requesting ordered material, and failing to explain or correct the lapse. Consequently, the court deemed the People's certificate of compliance invalid and their statement of readiness illusory. As the People exceeded their allotted speedy trial time (92 chargeable days against a 90-day limit), the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument was granted.

Discovery ComplianceDue DiligenceCertificate of ComplianceSpeedy TrialStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of StatutesCriminal Procedure LawIAB AttachmentsMisdemeanor ChargesProsecutorial Misconduct
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

East-West Realty Corporation, owner of 37 acres in the Town of Colonie, sought to have its property, along with an additional 6 acres, annexed by the City of Watervliet to facilitate a senior citizen assisted-living development. The Town of Colonie denied the petition, citing non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and lack of overall public interest. The City of Watervliet, however, approved the petition and initiated a court proceeding to determine if the annexation was in the public interest, with East-West intervening as a petitioner. The Town of Colonie moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Watervliet failed to comply with SEQRA prior to approving the annexation. The court found that annexation constitutes an 'action' subject to SEQRA review, even for parcels less than 100 acres, and that such review must occur at the earliest opportunity. Concluding that no SEQRA compliance occurred before the joint hearing, the court granted the Town of Colonie's motion and dismissed the petition.

annexationSEQRAenvironmental reviewzoning restrictionspublic interestmunicipal lawType I actionunlisted actionCPLR 404General Municipal Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case concerns an appeal by New York Underwriters, a worker's compensation insurer, challenging an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award of death benefits to the statutory beneficiaries of the deceased worker, Clarence G. Ehlinger. The insurer initially filed an appeal in district court, mistakenly naming the deceased worker as the sole defendant. After the statutory 20-day appeal period expired, an amended petition was filed correctly identifying the beneficiaries as defendants. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, a decision upheld by this court. The court ruled that the original petition naming the deceased was a nullity and did not confer jurisdiction over the beneficiaries, and the subsequent untimely amendment failed to cure this jurisdictional defect. The beneficiaries were thus entitled to stand on the IAB award.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionTimeliness of AppealIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory BeneficiariesMistaken IdentityParty MisnomerTexas LawAppellate ProcedureDeath Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. ADJ6610233
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case concerns a deceased correctional officer whose dependent sons were awarded death benefits. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order requiring an offset for a CalPERS special death benefit received by the decedent's widow, deeming it consistent with precedent and statutory intent. The Board also issued a notice of intention to disallow the applicant's attorney's requested fee increase due to non-compliance with a rule regarding notice to the client of adverse interests. Compliance with this rule is required for the fee increase to be considered by the trial judge.

CalPERSspecial death benefitoffsetdeath benefitsdependent childrenattorney's feesWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counselPetiton for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ6413657
Regular
Feb 26, 2009

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The City of Santa Rosa sought reconsideration of a Stipulated Award that adjusted permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658(d) starting March 25, 2008. The Board denied the petition, finding the employer's argument that the 15% reduction applied retroactively to all payments was erroneous. The employer failed to comply with statutory requirements for providing notice of permanent disability status and commencing timely payments after temporary disability ended. Consequently, the employer is not entitled to the benefit of the Labor Code section 4658(d) reduction due to its own statutory non-compliance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStipulated AwardPermanent Disability IndemnityLabor Code section 4658(d)Police OfficerIndustrial InjuryLow BackPermanent and StationaryOffer of Regular WorkLabor Code section 4061
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,329 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