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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. 67209218
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kane v. Hart & Krouse Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the timeliness of a claim for a myocardial infarction. The claimant, a sandblaster, suffered a myocardial infarction in April 1967. An initial C-3 form filed in September 1968 listed 'silicosis,' but subsequent medical reports by Dr. Edward C. Alessi detailed a heart condition. A later C-3 form in September 1972 specifically mentioned the myocardial infarction. The employer argued the cardiac claim, filed in 1972, was untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law section 28. The Board found that the September 1968 filing, combined with the medical reports, sufficiently alerted the carrier to the claimant's condition. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the timeliness of the claim.

Timeliness of ClaimMyocardial InfarctionSilicosisWorkers' Compensation LawNotice to CarrierMedical ReportsPermanent DisabilityHeart ConditionOccupational DiseaseC-3 Form
References
2
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
6
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 14, 2020

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE HARTFORD

The applicant, Preston Lee Brown Scott, was declared a vexatious litigant in 2018 and is subject to a pre-filing order. This order requires him to obtain prior approval from a judge before filing any documents with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). He has filed multiple petitions for reconsideration without this approval. The WCAB has reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances to warrant acceptance. Therefore, the documents submitted by Mr. Scott are not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRule 10430Rule 10782In pro perPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication of claimDeclaration of readinessPleading
References
16
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034), ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT, AIG, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

Kristian Von Ritzhoff has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10782. This designation requires him to obtain prior approval from the Presiding Judge or the Appeals Board before filing any pleadings, unless represented by a licensed attorney. The WCAB reviewed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Von Ritzhoff, dated September 10, 2012, and determined it was *not accepted* for filing. This ruling signifies the Board's adherence to the pre-filing order in managing the applicant's litigation activities.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalExtraordinary remedyDeputy CommissionerOgden EntertainmentBroadspire
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jex v. Albion Correctional Facility

A vocational cosmetology instructor, the claimant, sustained a workplace injury in 1994, exacerbating preexisting respiratory issues, and received workers' compensation benefits until October 1995. In 1999, before taking disability retirement, she filed a new claim for an occupational disease caused by workplace air quality dating back to 1989. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed her occupational disease claim time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a decision upheld after her application for reconsideration was denied. The court affirmed the Board's finding, stating that occupational disease claims must be filed within two years of disablement and awareness of its work-related cause. Evidence from October and December 1995 indicated the claimant's knowledge of the link between her respiratory problems and employment, thus rendering her 1999 claim untimely.

Occupational diseaseUntimely claimTime-barredRespiratory problemsVocational cosmetology instructorWorkers’ Compensation BoardAppealEvidence of knowledgeDisablement dateWorkplace injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ761271 (SJO 0070447)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

Dorothy Thompson vs. GENERAL MOTORS, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has declared Dorothy Thompson a vexatious litigant. This declaration follows a notice issued on September 7, 2010, to which no response was received. As a result, any future filings by Ms. Thompson in propria persona will be considered "conditionally filed." Such filings will only be deemed properly filed after a judge or the Board determines they do not violate Rule 10782(a).

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPropria PersonaRule 10782(a)Conditionally FiledPermissibly Self-InsuredSedgwick Claims Management ServicesNotice of IntentionPresiding Workers' Compensation Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 8,608 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