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

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
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. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
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

Beltrone Construction Co v. McGowan

Petitioner, a prime contractor for a public works project, challenged a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department found petitioner's subcontractor willfully underpaid prevailing wages and supplements, holding petitioner responsible under Labor Law § 223. Petitioner argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted the Department's collection of supplemental benefits, as the Department used a "line-item" method for calculating supplements. The court agreed, ruling that the Department was preempted from enforcing the supplement collection under its promulgated schedule because petitioner was not informed of a policy change to a permissible "total package" approach during the relevant period. Consequently, the determination was annulled, and the petition granted.

Labor LawPrevailing WageWage SupplementsERISA PreemptionPublic Works ContractSubcontractor LiabilityLine-Item MethodTotal Package ApproachAppellate ReviewAdministrative Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1971

Claim of Wippert v. Peele Bros.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which ruled that a claimant widow was entitled to supplemental benefits without deducting social security benefits received from her own earnings. The employer and insurance carrier appealed this decision. The central issue was whether social security benefits, regardless of their source, should be offset against supplemental benefits under subdivision 9 of section 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The court found that the statute's language explicitly requires such an offset, irrespective of the social security benefits' originating source. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's determination, remitting the matter for recalculation of the supplemental benefit.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security OffsetSupplemental AllowancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionBenefit ReductionLegislative HistoryClaimant WidowPublic PolicyBenefit Calculation
References
1
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
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estate of Seitz v. Jacobson & Co.

This appeal concerns the timeliness of a supplemental application for review in a workers' compensation death benefits claim. John Seitz, a sheet metal worker, died from asbestosis-related lung cancer. His surviving spouse filed for benefits but died before causality was established, leading a WCLJ to close the case. The decedent's estate sought to reopen the case, and although a WCLJ initially ruled the claim abated upon the spouse's death, the estate filed for Board review. After being granted an extension by the Board's Office of Appeals, the estate filed a supplemental application arguing for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). However, a Board panel subsequently deemed this application untimely and denied the claim. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the application as untimely after granting an extension, and also noted the Board's unexplained departure from prior precedents. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Death Benefits ClaimSupplemental Application ReviewTimeliness of FilingAbatement of Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Section 16 (4-b)Appellate Division ReviewAbuse of DiscretionBoard PrecedentRemand for Further ProceedingsAsbestosis-related Cancer
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,877 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