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. ADJ106846 (VNO 0536976)
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

SARKIS INDOIAN (Dec'd), BETTY INDOIAN (Widow) vs. ON THE WHEELS, SUCCESS DELIVERY, NOUNE SOMOKRANIAN, VIGEN GABOUCHIAN, ROUZZANA ARCHAKOUNI, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the decedent sustained a fatal cumulative trauma injury due to his employment with Success Delivery. The Board found the medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, lacked sufficient factual basis and an accurate employment history to establish a causal link. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record to determine if the employment with Success Delivery contributed to the injury.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryDeath benefitsEmployment relationshipSubstantial shareholderPartnershipUninsured employerMedical evidenceCausationApportionment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mihelis v. i.park Lake Success

This case concerns an appeal from an order denying summary judgment in a construction accident lawsuit. The plaintiff and a coworker were severely injured, and the coworker killed, when a roof panel collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim asserted a lack of safety devices. The appellate court modified the original order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing defendants' failure to provide proper protection despite knowing the defective condition of the roof. It also affirmed the denial of dismissal for the plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and affirmed the denial of defendants' premature contractual indemnification claims against Professional Waterproofing & Restoration.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentRoof CollapseNegligenceContractual IndemnificationWorksite SafetyUnsafe ConditionsThird-Party Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollis v. New School for Social Research

This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves outstanding issues regarding attorney's fees and costs following a jury verdict in an age discrimination and equal pay case. Plaintiff Adamantia Pollis sued The New School for Social Research and achieved partial success. The court determined reasonable hourly rates for Pollis's lead attorney, Janice Goodman, and a paralegal. It applied reductions to the hours claimed due to partial success and the dismissal of certain claims, including the ADEA claim. Ultimately, the court awarded Pollis $142,289 in attorney's fees and $22,235.42 in costs and expenses. The New School's counter-claim for attorney's fees related to the successfully defended ADEA claim was denied, as the court found Pollis's ADEA claims were not frivolous.

Age DiscriminationEqual Pay ActAttorney's FeesCosts and ExpensesEmployment DiscriminationPrevailing PartyLodestar MethodLitigation HistoryHourly RatesSouthern District of New York
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheehan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Plaintiff James C. Sheehan moved for attorney's fees after successfully suing Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for wrongful termination of long-term disability benefits. The court had previously ruled that MetLife wrongfully terminated benefits and awarded Sheehan $218,235.24, which was affirmed on appeal. MetLife argued against the fee award or sought a reduction due to Sheehan's partial success. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Haight, found Sheehan was a "prevailing party" and calculated a lodestar fee of $123,387.50 after adjusting hourly rates for some attorneys and disallowing time for pre-suit administrative proceedings. Due to Sheehan's partial success, the court applied a 30% downward adjustment, ultimately awarding $86,371.25 in attorney's fees to Sheehan.

ERISAAttorney's FeesDisability BenefitsWrongful TerminationLodestar MethodPartial SuccessPrevailing PartySecond CircuitDistrict CourtInsurance Policy
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reda v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiffs, former managers of Videk, sued Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) and Eastman Technology, Inc. (ETI) for alleged breach of a "Long Term Incentive Plan" (LTIP). They sought payment under a merger clause, contending a payout was triggered when Videk was removed from ETI and merged into Kodak. Defendants argued that no merger occurred and that Videk was not financially successful, a prerequisite for any payout under the LTIP. The court concluded that the LTIP indeed required financial success for a payout and found that Videk was not financially successful, having sustained significant cumulative losses. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to establish that Videk was merged into Kodak, as it maintained its separate identity as a division of ETI. The court also determined that defendants did not breach their implied contractual obligation of good faith and fair dealing, as they acted within their contractual discretion. Consequently, the amended judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Contract disputeMerger clauseFinancial success conditionBreach of contractGood faith and fair dealingImplied obligationVenture managementLong Term Incentive PlanCorporate structureEmployee compensation
References
8
Case No. ADJ6633632
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DESHAY FORD vs. TRI-COUNTIES REGIONAL CENTERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Deshay Ford's successive petition for reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board order denying his petition for removal. The Board dismissed Ford's petition because successive petitions challenging a prior order are impermissible under established precedent. The applicant's sole recourse for reviewing an Appeals Board decision is to petition for a writ of review to the Court of Appeals.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDismissedSuccessive petitionsWrit of reviewAppeals BoardCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A FarmingIn pro perTri-Counties Regional Centers
References
2
Case No. ADJ9177100, ADJ9483143
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

Gregory Enlow vs. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves applicant Gregory Enlow's petition for reconsideration of a prior dismissal order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely filed, exceeding the 20-day deadline plus mailing extension. Furthermore, the Board found the petition to be successive, as a prior reconsideration had already been denied. As a result, the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant this untimely and successive petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional LimitLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013WCAB Rule 10507Consecutive PetitionWrit of ReviewEn Banc Decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ11997989, ADJ2534190, ADJ3372314, ADJ470082, ADJ6672465
Regular
Mar 13, 2023

JAMES VESSELS vs. CRUZ MODULAR, INC., LABOR READY, ENSTAR US, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely, having been filed significantly past the jurisdictional deadline. The Board also noted this was a successive petition, which is impermissible when the prior petition was not successful and no new grievances have arisen. The Applicant's repeated, untimely filings have led the Board to consider declaring him a vexatious litigant under Rule 10430. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed in its entirety.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelysuccessive petitionjurisdictionalMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com.Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
14
Case No. ADJ16824578, ADJ16974663
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

KOKAYI ELDRIDGE vs. CALIFORNIA HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Kokayi Eldridge, sought reconsideration of an order dismissing her applications for adjudication due to an inability to appear at hearings. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding it to be successive and duplicative of an earlier petition. The Board noted that no new evidence was presented and cautioned the applicant against filing further successive petitions, recommending that the WCJ set a new date for an MSC or status conference.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalApplications for Adjudication of ClaimWith PrejudiceDental EmergencyFamily EmergencyNotice of IntentionReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5909
References
5
Case No. LAO 0798702
Regular
Jun 19, 2008

ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ vs. EL TORITO RESTAURANT, KEMPER PRIMARY WORK COMP PRG, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves applicant Enrique Hernandez's second petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition because it was a successive filing, as the initial petition had already been denied on the merits without new evidence. Applicant's arguments regarding a repetitive stress disorder (RSD) diagnosis were not considered due to the successive nature of the petition and his failure to properly present new evidence.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJIndustrial InjuryNeckLeft ShoulderLeft Upper ExtremityRepetitive Stress Disorder (RSD)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Successive PetitionWrit of Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 677 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