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. 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. 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

Lang v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

Plaintiffs Cliff and Betsy Lang filed a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Company of New York, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and New York General Business Law § 349. The plaintiffs claimed they were overcharged for title insurance during a mortgage refinancing, as they did not receive a discounted rate they believed they were entitled to under state law. Defendant moved to dismiss the RESPA claim, arguing that RESPA § 8(b) does not provide a private right of action for 'overcharges'. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, finding that RESPA § 8(b) prohibits fees for unperformed services or splits, not simply excessive charges. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

RESPATitle InsuranceMortgage RefinancingOvercharge ClaimsMotion to DismissFederal CourtState LawSupplemental JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPleading Standards
References
31
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
Case No. ADJ9074552; ADJ9074553
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

VINCENT HERNANDEZ vs. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal regarding the selection of an Occupational Medicine QME panel. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that the defendant's request for an Occupational Medicine QME panel complied with Labor Code Section 4062.2. The report reasoned that Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.1(b)'s requirement for supporting documentation for specialty changes does not invalidate a request if not provided. Additionally, the Board found the applicant's arguments regarding an unfair advantage and the WCJ's interpretation of Section 31.1 to be misplaced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJQME panelOccupational MedicineTitle 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.1Labor Code Section 4062.2Treating PhysicianPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationMedical Unit
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortes v. City of New York

Plaintiff Frankie Cortes, a former Corrections Officer with the New York City Department of Correction, filed an action alleging retaliation and discrimination based on gender and race under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985, and New York state and city human rights laws. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court dismissed Title VII claims against individual defendants and sex discrimination-based Section 1981 claims with prejudice. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was dismissed with leave to replead. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss retaliation and racial discrimination claims under Section 1981, as well as First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection claims under Section 1983. Motions to dismiss based on statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies for Title VII hostile work environment and SHRL/CHRL claims were also denied, without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983First AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2012

James v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Joseph C. James, an African-American male, commenced this action against Countrywide Financial Corp. and individual supervisors, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation based on race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, Section 1983, NYHRL, FLSA, and NYLL. He claimed disparate treatment including demotion, unequal compensation, lack of management support, and sabotage of recruiting efforts. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It dismissed Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims, NYHRL claims, Section 1983, FLSA, NYLL, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims. Certain Title VII discrimination claims and specific Section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims were allowed to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissUnequal PayHostile Work EnvironmentDemotionFair Labor Standards Act
References
150
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moll v. US Life Title Insurance Co. of New York

The case involves plaintiffs Moll, Elser, McGuire, and Harlow suing US Life Title Insurance Company of New York, asserting claims under RESPA, RICO, and state laws. Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation, failure to disclose kickbacks to attorneys, and aiding and abetting fraud related to title insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to adequately allege mail fraud or commercial bribery as predicate acts for RICO claims, citing insufficient evidence of misrepresentation, a duty to disclose, substantial assistance in fraud, or economic harm due to non-negotiable premiums. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted, leave to replead was denied, and pendent state law claims were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICO ActRESPA ActMail FraudCommercial BriberyFraud AllegationsMotion to DismissPendent State ClaimsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Title Insurance
References
33
Case No. ADJ2547747 (POM 0221083)
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

EDUARDO VALENCIA vs. SAMICK MUSIC CORPORATION, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The petition was deficient as it was unsigned, unverified, and lacked proof of service on all parties. These defects violate Labor Code section 5902 and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10850. Even if the petition had been procedurally sound, the WCAB indicated it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseFuture Treatment LiabilityUnsigned PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10850
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,098 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