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
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1998

Stoll v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case concerns an appeal regarding a stipulation of settlement in a personal injury claim, involving a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff initially refused to sign the release, asserting that his continuing workers' compensation benefits should remain unaffected, contrary to his attorney's counsel. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division reversed this order, finding that the plaintiff's attorney, despite a factual dispute over actual authority, possessed apparent authority to enter into the settlement. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the stipulation and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienStipulation of SettlementAttorney AuthorityApparent AuthorityMediationVacate StipulationAppellate ReviewNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. City of New York

Plaintiff initiated a civil rights action against the City of New York, individual police officers, and Centre Firearms Co., Inc. following an alleged assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution in 1982. Plaintiff sought to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance, claiming it was mistakenly applied to all defendants instead of only Centre Firearms. District Judge MacMAHON denied the plaintiff's motion, finding that the alleged mistakes by counsel were not grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The court further awarded $500 in attorneys' fees to the defendants, noting that vacating the stipulation would not benefit the plaintiff as the federal claims lacked merit and state claims were time-barred.

Civil Rights ActionMotion to VacateStipulation of DiscontinuanceFed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)Excusable NeglectAttorneys' Fees AwardedPendent JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsFalse ArrestMalicious Prosecution
References
11
Case No. ADJ1895769 (OAK 0305869)
Regular
Aug 24, 2016

CATHERINE BURNHAM vs. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, finding jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the cost of specialized prosthetic braces (IDEOs), which a prior judge erroneously sent for Independent Bill Review. The WCAB determined that Labor Code section 4603.6 did not apply as there was no billable service in the conventional sense. Following a Commissioners' Conference, the parties entered stipulations for the provision of the braces, payment of fees according to the CA fee schedule, and resolution of associated penalties. The WCAB approved these stipulations, resolving the parties' dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarJurisdictionLabor Code 4603.6Independent Bill ReviewIntrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal OrthosisIDEO bracesMedical Fee ScheduleLabor Code 4603.2
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1993

Claim of Dukes v. Capitol Formation, Inc.

A claimant was injured in an automobile accident in 1971 while on a business trip, resulting in a compensable injury. Over the next two decades, numerous hearings were held regarding medical bill payments and related compensation issues. The parties eventually entered into a stipulated settlement, which included a $75,000 lump-sum payment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-b). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the claimant’s request to set aside this stipulation, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied by the Board. The appeals court dismissed the appeal of the Board’s June 7, 1993 decision as untimely, and affirmed the Board’s August 19, 1993 decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationStipulated SettlementLump-Sum SettlementReconsiderationUntimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudCollusionMistakeTotal Disability
References
7
Case No. ADJ7358750
Regular
Jul 24, 2017

ANDRES GUZMAN vs. AEROSPACE SERVICE CONTROLS, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the original findings. The Board affirmed the prior finding that the applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his head, traumatic brain injury, and psyche, as stipulated by the parties. The Board denied the defendant's request to withdraw the stipulation regarding the psyche injury, finding no good cause to relieve them from the agreement made during a lengthy hearing. The Board amended the findings to reflect injury to the neck, correcting a factual error where the original order stated injury to the back.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeStipulationsAffirmative DefenseClerical ErrorUnilateral Mistake of FactGood CauseLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)
References
10
Case No. ADJ7274616
Regular
Jul 20, 2012

ARNULFO CERVANTES vs. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that an applicant's stroke arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment. The denial was based on a stipulation between the parties that the applicant's job was stressful. This stipulation established "stressful employment" as fact, binding on the parties. The Workers' Compensation Judge correctly utilized this stipulation along with medical evidence to reach the original finding.

WCABReconsiderationStipulationStressful EmploymentPQME EvidenceStrokeArising Out OfCourse Of EmploymentMinutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ6866226
Regular
Sep 08, 2014

Patrick Vigil vs. Clars Estate Auction Gallery, First Comp Insurance

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, rescinding the WCJ's finding of no industrial injury. While the parties had stipulated to injury AOE/COE and settled the claim, the WCJ erroneously found otherwise. However, the Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to establish a violation of Labor Code section 132a. Ultimately, the applicant takes nothing on his section 132a claim, but the industrial injury finding is reinstated based on the prior stipulation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6866226Patrick VigilCLARS Estate Auction GalleryFIRST COMP INSURANCEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderInjury AOE/COELabor Code Section 132aViolation of 132a
References
8
Case No. ADJ3298152 (AHM 0079395)
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

SUSAN DEAN vs. HOMEGROCER.COM, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to be released from a stipulation regarding injured body parts in a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) previously granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a finding that there was good cause to release the defendant from the stipulation. The defendant then petitioned for reconsideration or removal of the WCAB's decision. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for removal, finding it was not a final order. The WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, holding that a subsequent conflicting medical opinion does not constitute good cause to set aside a stipulation and reaffirming that the defendant remains bound by the original agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStipulationGood CauseInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderJudicial AuthorityAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ10954606
Regular
Mar 09, 2020

DORIT DAVIDOFF vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify findings of fact regarding industrial injury AOE/COE. The Board rescinded the previous decision and substituted a new Findings and Award to specifically address the stipulated injury to the lumbar spine, ensuring the award of permanent disability benefits was properly supported. The Board clarified that stipulations agreed upon by the parties should be treated as findings of fact to meet statutory requirements. The decision confirms permanent disability for the left ankle, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine, denies claims for neck and knee injuries, and orders further medical treatment and attorney fees.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineThoracic SpineLeft AnkleAOE/COEStipulationJurisdictional FactsFindings of Fact
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 16,246 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