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

Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich

The defendant, Leonid Gurovieh (also known as Leo Gore), filed a motion to compel Judge Platt to disqualify himself from the case, citing alleged partiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Gore's motion was based on remarks made by the judge during previous proceedings. The judge denied the motion for recusal, stating that his reactions, including expressions of disapprobation and anger, were a direct result of the "outlandish behavior" of both Gore and his counsel, Simon Schwarz, Esq. This behavior included violations of court orders, failure to appear, attempts to suborn perjury, and obstruction of court orders. The court found that no objective observer would reasonably question its impartiality and affirmed that its rulings were based on the facts presented, not on bias.

RecusalDisqualificationJudicial ConductJudicial ImpartialityBiasPrejudiceContempt of Court28 U.S.C. § 455(a)Federal JudgeMotion Denial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Landau

Lawrence Landau, indicted for perjury related to alleged union payoffs, moved to dismiss the indictment. The court found that the grand jury prosecutor's questions, which formed the basis of the perjury charge, were "fundamentally ambiguous." The questions were phrased such that Landau could reasonably interpret them to refer to a time period preceding March 1983, while the government's key evidence was a tape recording from June 1983, a period not explicitly covered by the questioning. The court emphasized the prosecutor's duty to ask precise questions. Consequently, the motion was granted, and the indictment was dismissed.

PerjuryGrand JuryIndictment DismissalFundamental AmbiguityDue ProcessFifth AmendmentFederal Criminal ProcedureUnion Extortion InvestigationWitness TestimonyStatute of Limitations
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wynn v. AC ROCHESTER

Plaintiff James I. Wynn, Jr. initiated an action against his former employer AC Rochester, General Motors Corporation, and personnel manager Charles Volo, alleging fraud and misrepresentation following a layoff and a buy-out agreement. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing federal law under the Labor Management Relations Act. Wynn sought to amend his complaint to include claims for class action certification, breach of collective bargaining agreement, perjury, mail fraud, and a jury trial. Chief Judge Larimer denied all of Wynn's proposed amendments, citing futility, failure to satisfy class action requirements, failure to exhaust administrative remedies and statute of limitations issues for the collective bargaining claim, lack of legal basis for fraud and perjury, and a waived right to a jury trial due to an untimely request.

fraudmisrepresentationcollective bargaining agreementclass actionmotion to amenddenial of motionemployment disputelayoffstatute of limitationsjury trial waiver
References
9
Case No. 1318/79
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Arnette

In 1979, the Queens County Grand Jury investigated the defendant, the Superintendent of the Centralized Services Facility, for allegedly using State employees and materials for personal home repairs during work hours. The defendant was subsequently charged with criminal contempt, perjury, rewarding official misconduct, and conspiracy. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of two counts of contempt, acquitted of perjury, and later pleaded guilty to rewarding official misconduct. The Appellate Division reversed the contempt convictions and vacated the plea. The People appealed, conceding the second contempt count but arguing for the reinstatement of the first. The Court found the defendant's Grand Jury testimony regarding his knowledge of employees working at his home to be equivocal and evasive, despite seemingly clear statements in isolation, as he contradicted his prior testimony about remembering such events. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was modified to reinstate the criminal contempt conviction on the first count and the case was remitted to the Appellate Division for a determination of facts.

Criminal contemptGrand JuryEvasive testimonyPerjuryOfficial misconductAppellate reviewRemittalQueens CountyState employeesWaiver of immunity
References
4
Case No. ADJ1620559 (ANA 0373462)
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

Wayne Johnson vs. Tennant Company, Sentry Claims Service

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering applicant's counsel, defense counsel, and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide sworn declarations regarding an alleged ex parte communication. This communication apparently led the WCJ to vacate a prior submission order, citing the applicant's upcoming surgery and a utilization review denial resolution. The defendant seeks removal, claiming the WCJ improperly obtained this information. The WCAB is also ordering all future correspondence be directed to the Commissioners.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDecision after ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpineRight Lower ExtremityPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. SDO 360301
Regular
Mar 25, 2008

Teresa H. Huckaby vs. ADSI-OSCO/SAV-ON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant's claims administrator. The petition was dismissed because it was untimely, unverified, and unserved on the applicant. The WCAB noted that the defendant claimed late receipt of the original order but did not support this claim under penalty of perjury.

Petition for reconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePermanent disability advancesWCJClaims administratorUnverifiedUnservedLabor Code section 5900WCAB Rule 10850Official Address Record
References
0
Case No. ADJ11136346, ADJ10857795
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

IRMA NELSON vs. SAFEWAY/ALBERTSON'S HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification against a WCJ. The petition failed to provide specific, factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support claims of bias or an expressed opinion on the merits. Because the petition lacked the required factual basis under Labor Code section 5311 and relevant procedural rules, it was insufficient to warrant disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
6
Case No. ADJ6879751, ADJ6523394, ADJ6523461
Regular
Jun 25, 2018

VICENTE URUENA vs. RESEARCH METAL INDUSTRIES, ILLINOIS MEDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and disqualification of the workers' compensation judge. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, the petition for disqualification lacked specific factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support the claims of bias. Therefore, both aspects of the petition were denied.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10452
References
3
Case No. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
0
Case No. ADJ971572 (SFO 0507738)
Regular
Jan 05, 2010

JAMES VON BIMA vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured, c/o REMIF

The defendant City of San Rafael petitioned for the removal of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), alleging bias and a predetermined opinion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied this petition. The WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient as it failed to specify grounds for disqualification or provide supporting facts under penalty of perjury. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to issue a decision.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Permissibly Self-InsuredCity of San RafaelWorkers' Compensation JudgePetition for RemovalOrder of SubmissionPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCode of Civil Procedure
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 45 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