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

Local 201, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc.

This case arises from a work assignment dispute between Local 38 and Local 201 regarding the fabrication of plastic inspection boxes for Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc. Local 201 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Shaker from assigning work to Local 38 and to compel tripartite arbitration. Shaker moved to stay arbitration, citing a pending NLRB 10(k) proceeding, while Local 38 moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied Shaker’s stay, affirming the national policy favoring arbitration. Local 201’s injunction request was denied due to insufficient proof of irreparable harm. Local 38’s motion to dismiss was also denied, with the court asserting jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted Local 201's request for tripartite arbitration, deeming it the most sensible and efficient method for resolving the three-sided dispute.

work assignment disputelabor union disputearbitration injunctionpreliminary injunctionsubject matter jurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRAtripartite arbitrationNational Labor Relations BoardNLRB 10(k) proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Newburgh v. Travis

Police officer Robert Travis, employed by the City of Newburgh, sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident with an underinsured vehicle while on duty. Travis sought underinsured motorist benefits and demanded arbitration. The City of Newburgh petitioned to stay arbitration, arguing it did not issue the policies or agree to arbitration. The court denied the petition to stay arbitration, citing a prior binding determination in Matter of City of Newburgh v Hoffman. The court also found the City of Newburgh is entitled to an offset for payments made under General Municipal Law § 207-c (6), with the amount of any offsets to be determined by the arbitrator.

ArbitrationUnderinsured MotoristStay of ArbitrationRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelPrior DeterminationOffsetGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficerMotor Vehicle Accident
References
5
Case No. ADJ7291550
Regular
May 05, 2015

TRAVIS BOYER vs. PAN PACIFIC PETROLEUM, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior award finding industrial injury. The WCAB held that the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) opinion was not substantial evidence as it lacked sufficient reasoning and was based on inconsistent applicant history. The Board concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the prior award was rescinded, and the applicant was found to have not sustained an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPan Pacific PetroleumNational Union Fire Insurance CompanyTravis Boyerlumbar spinearising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)statute of limitationsPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Dr. Khosrow Tabaddorsubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ7176518
Regular
Nov 13, 2013

TRAVIS RIEL vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, Lawfully Uninsured

This case concerns Travis Riel's workers' compensation claim for a 2007 spinal injury. The Appeals Board dismissed Riel's petition for reconsideration as premature, as it concerned a non-final order regarding EDD reimbursement, and Riel failed to serve EDD. The Board denied the defendant's petition, affirming the finding that Riel sustained new and further permanent disability, and that his claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The WCJ's conditional order for EDD reimbursement was not a final determination and Riel is not yet liable to reimburse EDD.

New and further disabilityPetition to reopenStatute of limitationsLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)Employment Development Department (EDD)ReimbursementPermanent and stationary dateAggrieved partyFinal orderPetition for reconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ9800793
Regular
Oct 06, 2016

TRAVIS TIDWELL vs. PRO TRAFFIC SERVICES, COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In Tidwell v. Pro Traffic Services, the applicant, Travis Tidwell, petitioned for reconsideration of a July 12, 2016 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This allows the Board to gain a complete understanding of the record for a just decision. All future filings related to the petition must now be submitted directly to the Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not district offices or e-filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTravis TidwellPro Traffic ServicesCompanion Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyIntercare PasadenaSan Diego District OfficeStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ6875466
Regular
Jun 24, 2010

TRAVIS BROCK vs. RON'S PLUMBING, HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRSTCOMP INSURANCE AGENCY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Travis Brock's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The original ruling found that Brock did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his left shoulder, back, and neck on March 27, 2009. This denial was based on the administrative law judge's credibility findings, which the Board adopted and incorporated. The judge found the testimony of witnesses Tonya Jeffers and Ricky Hancock more credible than the applicant's.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeInjury AOE/COECredibility FindingLeft Shoulder InjuryBack InjuryNeck InjuryWeed AbatementRotator Cuff
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baim v. Notto

Plaintiffs Travis Bairn and Donna Baim initiated a lawsuit against multiple law enforcement officers, alleging Fourth Amendment violations due to illegal entry and excessive force. During the proceedings, some defendants were dismissed or settled. At trial, only excessive force claims against Schenectady Police Department members proceeded to a jury. The jury found in favor of all individual defendants except Philip Notto, awarding Travis Bairn $10,000 in compensatory damages for excessive force at his apartment. Despite plaintiff's counsel conceding a set-off from a previous $25,000 settlement, rendering the judgment satisfied, Travis Bairn moved for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court determined Bairn was a "prevailing party" because common damages for the set-off were not proven, meaning the judgment against Notto was theoretically enforceable. After calculating the lodestar figure, the court reduced the attorney's fees by 50% due to the plaintiff's limited success at trial and also reduced claimed expenses. Ultimately, the motion for attorney's fees and expenses was granted for $10,572.74 against defendant Philip Notto.

Attorney's feesExcessive forceFourth AmendmentCivil rightsPrevailing partySet-offLodestar methodCompensatory damagesPolice misconductSettlement
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jessica C.

This opinion addresses child abuse petitions filed by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York against Gina C., a babysitter, concerning injuries to Travis S. and potential derivative neglect of Gina C.'s own child, Jessica C. The court examines whether a babysitter, whose services were performed outside the children's home and who is no longer employed, qualifies as a "person legally responsible" under Family Court Act article 10. Judge Guy P. De Phillips concludes that Gina C. is not a properly named respondent. Additionally, the court determines that a derivative finding of neglect for Jessica C. is not justified solely based on a single injury to Travis S., absent independent evidence of neglect. Consequently, both petitions against Gina C. are dismissed, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the Family Court and the specific interpretation of "person legally responsible" in the context of family-like relationships.

Child abuseChild neglectBabysitter liabilityFamily Court Act Article 10Legal responsibilityIn loco parentisJurisdictional limitsDerivative neglectStatutory interpretationParental responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travis v. Freedman

This personal injury lawsuit was filed under New York Labor Law 240 and 241 after a plaintiff fell from a spackle bucket during construction at a one-family home owned by Judith Freedman. The defendants, Herbert and Judith Freedman, moved for summary judgment, asserting the single-family dwelling exception to strict liability under the Labor Law, as they did not direct or control the work. The court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims against them. Upon reconsideration, while acknowledging factual disputes, the court reaffirmed its previous decision, finding no adequate factual basis for the plaintiff's claims of ordinary negligence or malicious conduct to overcome the summary judgment and strict liability exemption for homeowners.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawHomeowner LiabilityStrict LiabilityConstruction AccidentDiversity JurisdictionReconsiderationOne-Family Dwelling ExceptionFall from Height
References
7
Case No. ADJ1862937 (VNO 0503723)
Regular
May 07, 2012

TRAVIS GRANT vs. SIERRACIN CORPORATION (PPG INDUSTRIES), administered by AVIZENT RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to revive a December 9, 2008 dismissal order, arguing it was valid under Appeals Board Rule 10852. However, the Board found this dismissal order void *ab initio* because it was issued without the required notice of intention to dismiss and opportunity to be heard, as mandated by CCR Title 8, Section 10582. Therefore, the prior finding that the applicant's claim had not been dismissed was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactOrder of DismissalRule 10852Rule 10582Lack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissVoid Ab InitioAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 16 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