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. ADJ3687516
Regular
Jan 26, 2012

RAMONA ANAYA, JUAN JOSE GONZALEZ, JESUS CERVANTES, JULIE ANN CABEZA, WALTER CRABTREE vs. PORT HUENEME UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, J. M. SMUCKERS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., GHL ENTERPRISES, CIGA, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, MARY HEALTH OF THE SICK, REDISED INSURANCE, CRAWFY AND COMPANY, M.R. AUTOMOTIVE, CIGA, Administrative inTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, HIH AMERICA COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Attorney M. Francesca Hannan's request for a waiver of fees or a payment plan for reporter's transcripts. Hannan sought the transcripts to support allegations of bias by a Workers' Compensation Judge and claimed financial hardship and limited time for preparation. The Board found no legal basis for the fee waiver or payment plan under applicable rules and statutes, though it affirmed Hannan's right to obtain the transcripts upon payment.

WCABPetitionReporter's TranscriptFee WaiverPayment PlanGovernment Code 68632Administrative Director Rule 9990Appeals Board Rule 10740AnayaLien Trial
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06000 [187 AD3d 1395]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2020

Matter of Capraro v. Matrix Absence Mgt.

Claimant, a home-based claims examiner, was injured while moving unassembled new office furniture to his home office after his employer declined to cover the expense. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, but both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Board had applied a novel, rigid standard for at-home employees, limiting compensability to injuries during regular work hours and active work duties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found this new standard unsupported by precedent and inconsistent with the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Law, emphasizing that a regular pattern of work at home makes the residence a place of employment. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter, instructing the Board to apply the long-established standard to determine if the activity was "purely personal" or "reasonable and sufficiently work related."

Workers' CompensationArising out of employmentCourse of employmentWork-from-home injuryOffice furniturePersonal activity vs. work-relatedAppellate reviewRemittalBoard decision reversalHome as workplace
References
20
Case No. ADJ11775511
Regular
Sep 25, 2019

FONDA MCGENSY vs. OPERATION SAFEHOUSE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on August 7, 2018. The defendant is seeking reconsideration of the original Findings and Award, arguing the injury is barred by the going and coming rule. The defendant disputes whether the applicant's supervisor ordered her to drive an intern home, which is key to applying the special errand exception. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration to obtain a transcript of the trial testimony to fully assess the factual disputes.

Special errand exceptionGoing and coming rulePetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJTranscriptFactual disputesLegal issuesWCAB Rule 10740Electronic Adjudication Management System
References
0
Case No. ADJ2317869
Regular
Aug 04, 2009

ALLEN BONET vs. HONDA OF OAKLAND, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Honda of Oakland and Matrix Absence Management. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition because the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which are the strict requirements for removal. The Administrative Law Judge recommended denial, citing significant issues with the medical records and the applicant's inconsistent testimony regarding his date of injury. The ALJ had taken the matter out of submission to further develop the record, specifically to determine the correct date of injury, which is crucial for evaluating the defendants' post-termination and statute of limitations defenses.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ2317869Allen BonetHonda of OaklandMatrix Absence ManagementOrder Denying Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryAOE/COE
References
4
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
3
Case No. ADJ2623515 (SJO 0244721) ADJ1776322 (SJO 0250018)
Regular
Feb 10, 2010

THU-HA TRAN vs. THERMO LASER SCIENCE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

This case concerns Matrix Absence Management's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision regarding cost reimbursement for applicant Thu-Ha Tran's lumbar spine treatment. The arbitrator previously found insufficient evidence to compel reimbursement between Matrix and St. Paul Travelers. Matrix's petition lacked verification, a requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The Board dismissed the petition because Matrix failed to cure this defect despite notice. Even if verified, the Board would have denied the petition based on the original arbitrator's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyFindings and OrderReimbursementLumbar SpineMatrix Absence Management
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herald Co. v. Burke

Petitioner, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, sought to vacate and prohibit enforcement of oral orders made by Hon. William J. Burke, Onondaga County Court Judge, on May 24, June 29, and July 27, 1999, concerning the criminal case People v Cahill. The petitioner specifically sought access to transcripts of these 'proceedings' and a declaration of a right not to be excluded from further proceedings. The court reviewed the transcripts and concluded that the petitioner should be granted partial access to the transcripts. The court declined to declare a blanket right against exclusion, stating that closure depends on the proceeding's nature and potential prejudice to the defendant. The decision grants access to specific portions of the May 24 and June 29 transcripts, deeming other parts as informal discussions not historically open, and grants access to the entire July 27 transcript.

CPLR Article 78Public Access to RecordsCourtroom ClosureTranscript AccessPretrial ProceedingsCriminal ProcedureFair Trial RightsFirst AmendmentSixth AmendmentMedia Rights
References
14
Case No. 2014-06-0079
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2015

Beers, John v. Rajendra Bhakta d/b/a Ram Construction

John Beers, a construction worker, appealed an interlocutory order after injuring his head and low back from a fall. He alleged he worked "off and on" for Rajendra Bhakta, owner of Ram Construction, who denied his employment status. The trial court found Mr. Beers was not a statutory employee of Ram Construction on the injury date. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, noting the absence of a transcript or statement of evidence from the expedited hearing, which led to a presumption that the trial court's findings were correct. The case was remanded for any further proceedings that may be necessary.

Interlocutory AppealConstruction WorkerWork InjuryLadder FallHead InjuryLow Back InjuryStatutory Employee StatusEmployment DisputeAppellate ReviewAdequate Record
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co.

Truman Palmer, an employee of Miller Brewing Company, was discharged under a "Final Notice Procedure" due to a high absence rate. Palmer sued Miller, alleging retaliatory discharge, claiming his absences were related to a job-related back injury and subsequent worker's compensation claim. He also claimed breach of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Miller on the good faith claim and a take-nothing judgment on the retaliatory discharge, concluding Palmer was terminated solely for excessive absences, unrelated to his worker's compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed both rulings, holding that an absence control policy that does not excuse compensation-related absences does not inherently violate the retaliatory discharge statute (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c) and that employers do not have an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment relationships.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationAbsence Control PolicyAt-Will EmploymentGood Faith and Fair DealingSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionEmployment TerminationEvidentiary RulingsCausal Connection
References
24
Case No. E2002-01783-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Johann Wolmarans v. Lifestyle Furnishings

Johann Roshe Wolmarans sued Lifestyle Furnishings for injuries sustained on its premises, seeking damages under premises liability and worker's compensation. The Trial Court found Wolmarans to be an independent contractor, dismissing the worker's compensation claim. A jury subsequently found that the premises liability injury was entirely due to Wolmarans' own fault. Wolmarans appealed the judgment, raising multiple issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, citing the absence of an evidence transcript, the lack of a motion for a new trial regarding the premises liability claim, and the frivolous nature of at least one issue raised on appeal.

Premises LiabilityWorker's Compensation ClaimIndependent Contractor StatusJury VerdictAppellate ReviewAffirmation of JudgmentRemand for CostsPro Se RepresentationTranscript AbsenceMotion for New Trial Requirement
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,155 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