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. ADJ8595235
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

Thomas Carroll vs. Lehigh Hanson Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's initial petition for removal as procedurally improper, as it challenged a notice of intent rather than a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's supplemental petition for removal, which sought to overturn the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order closing discovery. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying the supplemental petition, especially since the WCJ left open the possibility of allowing the deposition after trial. A dissenting commissioner argued that the deposition of Dr. Dell was necessary to update his opinion and ensure a complete record for apportionment, similar to Dr. Russell's deposition.

Petition for RemovalNotice of IntentionQuash DepositionPQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureSupplemental PetitionDr. DellDr. RussellSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Supplement B Pilot Beneficiaries v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses consolidated appeals arising from the bankruptcy of American Airlines and its parent corporation, AMR. The appellants, a group of current pilots nearing retirement known as the “B Pilots,” challenged three orders of the bankruptcy court. These orders authorized American to reject its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the American Pilots Association, approved a new CBA settling B Pilots’ grievances, and allowed American to amend its pension plan by eliminating lump-sum payouts. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders, finding that the B Pilots were not 'interested parties' under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 to object to the CBA rejection, that the rejection abrogated previous guarantees, and that the grievances related to the old CBA did not survive its rejection.

BankruptcyAirline IndustryCollective Bargaining AgreementPension PlanLabor LawPilotsRetirement BenefitsGrievancesChapter 11Union Disputes
References
40
Case No. ADJ3393289 (LAO0594595)
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

BERNARD WILLIAM PONZI vs. LOS ANGELES MISSIONARY SOCIETY, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's request to file a supplemental petition for reconsideration but dismissed the original petition. The original petition was untimely, unverified, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration of prior orders. As no final order has issued since September 8, 1997, the applicant was not deemed aggrieved by a final decision. The WCAB recommended the applicant contact the Information and Assistance Officer for case status inquiries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLien OrderPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
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
0
Case No. 91 CV 5056; 92 CV 0128
Regular Panel Decision

Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

Plaintiff Loral Fairchild Corporation (Loral) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, subsequently expanding it to include claims against National Semiconductor Corporation (NSC) and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (FSC) concerning patent ownership. NSC and FSC sought to dismiss or stay these additional claims, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of ongoing patent ownership litigation in a California state court. While acknowledging the presence of supplemental jurisdiction for the ownership claims, the court ultimately exercised its discretion to abstain from immediate adjudication. After evaluating factors such as the order of jurisdiction, forum convenience, protection of federal plaintiff's rights, and the potential for piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that a stay was the most appropriate course of action. Consequently, the federal actions were ordered to be stayed pending the resolution of the related patent ownership dispute in the California state court.

Patent infringementPatent ownershipSupplemental jurisdictionAbstention doctrineJudicial estoppelStay of proceedingsIntertwined claimsFederal court discretionCalifornia state courtNew York state law
References
23
Case No. ADJ6821677
Regular
Sep 13, 2012

ANGELA GJERTSEN vs. VONS COMPANIES, INC.

This case involves Angela Gjertsen's petition for removal, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied. The petition, filed by Gjertsen's attorneys, sought reconsideration of an order taking a lien conference off calendar and requiring a supplemental AME report. The WCJ recommended denial because the petition lacked verification and proof of service, and the applicant failed to demonstrate she was aggrieved or irreparably harmed by the order. The WCJ noted that the order directed the defendant and lien claimant, not the applicant, to obtain the supplemental report.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAME reportlien conferenceJudge Pro Temporesubstantial medical evidenceCompromise and ReleaseNotice and Request for Allowance of LienSandhagen
References
0
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ6596506
Regular
May 14, 2012

ARACELI GARCIA vs. AMERICAN FOAM PACKAGING/AMFOAM; UEBTF

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because she was not a party aggrieved by the Supplemental Findings and Order. The applicant had previously settled her claim with the defendant via a Compromise & Release, agreeing that all liens would be handled by the defendant. The Supplemental Findings and Order only adjudicated the liens, leaving the applicant's separate claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits undetermined. Therefore, the applicant's rights and liabilities concerning the defendant were already finalized, and the F&O did not constitute a final order as to her.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and OrderArising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Post-termination claimLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Lien claimantsCompromise & Release (C&R)Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF)Cumulative trauma injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 24,349 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