Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. SBR 0290399

Regular

Jul 22, 2008

MERRICK GAUTREAUX vs. DUNAGAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board granted reconsideration of an award finding serious and willful misconduct by the employer, affirming the finding of misconduct for the reasons cited by the WCJ. However, the Board deferred the issue of whether the increased compensation award exceeds constitutional limits as per *Ferguson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, retaining jurisdiction for the WCJ to address this question. The Supplemental Findings, Award and Order were amended to reflect this deferral and reservation of jurisdiction.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code $\S\S 4553$4553.1permanent total disabilityFerguson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.constitutional limitindemnity payablenormal benefitsattorney's feesdeferred issue

References

Case No. ADJ8759846

Regular

Jun 05, 2025

Manuel Agurto vs. Peterberg Construction, Inc.; Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

Applicant, Manuel Agurto, seeks reconsideration of the February 4, 2025 Findings and Order (F&O) where the WCJ found injury to his psyche and determined his average weekly wage. The WCJ's Opinion on Decision (OOD) also included findings of injury to other body parts and awarded future medical for some. Applicant challenged various interlocutory issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to rescind the F&O and substitute it with a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) to reflect all of the WCJ's findings, awards, and orders, including additional body parts injured and an award of future medical, while deferring other issues for further development of the record. The Board admonished applicant's attorneys for frivolous conduct.

AOE/COEpsyche injuryAMEPQMEoccupational group 480Labor Code 4453(c)(4)petition for reconsiderationfinal orderinterlocutory issuesremoval standard

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511

References

Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)

Regular

May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803

References

Case No. ADJ7703859

Regular

Aug 01, 2016

ELAINE CONNOR vs. SIERRA COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE, CARE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that found no Labor Code section 132a discrimination. The applicant's petition primarily focused on a potential attorney's fee award for a deposition under Labor Code section 5710, which the original order did not address. The WCJ's report recommended granting reconsideration to award the requested attorney's fees, acknowledging the omission was inadvertent. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition, amending the order to include the $1,557.50 attorney's fee award, and otherwise affirmed the original findings. The Board also dismissed the defendant's improper supplemental petition and denied their petition for sanctions against applicant's counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 132aLabor Code 5710WCJAttorney's FeesDeposition FeesPetition for SanctionsWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental Filing

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Shimon v. Wong

Plaintiff Marilyn Shimon was awarded $75,000 for past pain and suffering and $25,000 for future pain and suffering in a personal injury action against defendant Dick J. Wong. The defendant conceded liability but moved to strike the award for future pain and suffering, arguing inconsistency with jury findings of no permanent or significant bodily limitation. Presiding District Judge Spatt reconciled the jury's verdict, interpreting the award as compensation for a non-permanent injury that prevented the plaintiff from performing usual activities for 90 out of 180 days, which could lead to future pain for a finite period. The court reviewed relevant precedents but distinguished them based on the specific medical and testimonial evidence presented by Shimon, including disc herniation and chronic pain. Ultimately, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding the jury's responses and damage award consistent with the evidence and ordered judgment to be entered according to the verdict.

Personal injuryJury verdictFuture pain and sufferingSerious injury thresholdNew York Insurance LawMotion to strikeVerdict consistencyEvidentiary supportMedical testimonyDisc herniation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 31, 2003

At & T Corp. v. Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc.

This order from District Judge Marrero confirms an arbitration award concerning a dispute between AT & T Corp. (as co-maintenance authority for TAT-10 submarine cable owners) and Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc. Tyco had previously admitted liability for severing the TAT-10 cable in 1998, leading to an arbitration panel awarding the Cable Owners $5,798,075.83 plus interest. Tyco sought to vacate this award, challenging the Panel's legal interpretations regarding a private cause of action under the Cable Convention, the common ownership doctrine, and the inclusion of annual restoration costs as damages. The Court reviewed Tyco's claims for legal error and insufficient discovery, applying a rigorous standard for disturbing arbitration awards. Ultimately, the judge rejected all of Tyco's arguments, finding no manifest disregard of the law or denial of fundamental fairness by the arbitration panel, and confirmed the award in its entirety.

ArbitrationSubmarine CableTelecommunicationsDamagesManifest Disregard of LawStandard of ReviewCable ConventionCable ActLoss of UseRestoration Costs

References

Case No. ADJ3674520

Regular

Mar 29, 2012

Linda Elachkar vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Chartis Insurance Services

This case involves supplemental attorney's fees awarded under Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review in *Northrup Grumman Corporation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, finding no reasonable basis for the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to award supplemental attorney's fees to the applicant, Linda Elachkar. The parties stipulated to a fee of $4,812.50, which the Board found to be reasonable.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable BasisRemandAppeals BoardStipulationAttorney's FeeNorthrop Grumman CorporationChartis Insurance Services

References

Case No. ADJ7736993, ADJ8633868

Regular

Jul 29, 2016

HUGO IBARRA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award. The applicant's argument focused on alleged errors in the WCJ's Opinion on Decision regarding advances, not the Findings and Award itself. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders determining substantive rights or liabilities. Since the Findings and Award did not address advances or offsets, and no final order on that issue exists, the petition was denied. Any dispute regarding advances must first be litigated at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability IndemnityAttorney's FeesOpinion on DecisionAdvancesOffsetsTrial Level

References

Showing 1-10 of 41,627 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. SBR 0290399

Regular

Jul 22, 2008

MERRICK GAUTREAUX vs. DUNAGAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

References

Case No. ADJ8759846

Regular

Jun 05, 2025

Manuel Agurto vs. Peterberg Construction, Inc.; Praetorian Insurance Work Comp Program

AOE/COEpsyche injuryAMEPQMEoccupational group 480Labor Code 4453(c)(4)petition for reconsiderationfinal orderinterlocutory issuesremoval standard

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511

References

Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)

Regular

May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803

References

Case No. ADJ7703859

Regular

Aug 01, 2016

ELAINE CONNOR vs. SIERRA COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE, CARE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 132aLabor Code 5710WCJAttorney's FeesDeposition FeesPetition for SanctionsWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental Filing

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Shimon v. Wong

Personal injuryJury verdictFuture pain and sufferingSerious injury thresholdNew York Insurance LawMotion to strikeVerdict consistencyEvidentiary supportMedical testimonyDisc herniation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 31, 2003

At & T Corp. v. Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc.

ArbitrationSubmarine CableTelecommunicationsDamagesManifest Disregard of LawStandard of ReviewCable ConventionCable ActLoss of UseRestoration Costs

References

Case No. ADJ3674520

Regular

Mar 29, 2012

Linda Elachkar vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Chartis Insurance Services

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable BasisRemandAppeals BoardStipulationAttorney's FeeNorthrop Grumman CorporationChartis Insurance Services

References

Case No. ADJ7736993, ADJ8633868

Regular

Jul 29, 2016

HUGO IBARRA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability IndemnityAttorney's FeesOpinion on DecisionAdvancesOffsetsTrial Level

References

Showing 1-10 of 41,627 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.