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. 772 F.Supp. 1412
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. New York

Defendant Crosson moved for an order clarifying an August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment, which implemented a Second Circuit mandate declaring New York's lag-payroll law unconstitutional. Crosson argued that the Judgment enjoined the law's application to both unrepresented and represented employees, while State Defendants maintained it covered only represented employees. The Court acknowledged the Second Circuit's focus on represented employees due to contractual impairment but clarified its own Order and Judgment to include all employees, finding the lag-payroll statute non-severable. The Court reasoned that severing the statute to apply only to unrepresented employees would significantly alter the original legislative intent, reducing the expected savings by 90%. Consequently, the Court granted Crosson's motion, clarifying that the August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment applies to both unrepresented and represented employees.

Lag Payroll LawContract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionSecond Circuit MandateDeclaratory JudgmentRestitution of WagesSeverability of StatuteLegislative IntentUnrepresented EmployeesRepresented Employees
References
11
Case No. ADJ126075
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

JOAN HANNIS-GERFEN vs. VALLEY OAKS CHILDREN'S SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant who sustained industrial injuries and was initially unrepresented when the employer's insurer filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award of attorney's fees to the applicant under Labor Code section 4064(c), finding the employer liable because the applicant was unrepresented at the time the insurer initiated the adjudication process. The Board did not reach the issue of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 4607.

JOAN HANNIS-GERFENVALLEY OAKS CHILDREN'S SERVICESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ126075RDG 0120996OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONCUMULATIVE INJURYNECKBILATERAL WRISTSTRIGGER FINGERS
References
4
Case No. ADJ2224397 (ANA 0397221)
Regular
Feb 16, 2016

MARK PAYNE vs. MBC CONSTRUCTION, REDWOOD FIRE \& CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award. This was due to procedural errors, including the WCJ's failure to properly memorialize admitted evidence and stipulations. The applicant, unrepresented, was also denied the opportunity to present witnesses. The case is remanded for further proceedings, including a mandatory settlement conference and trial, to ensure a proper hearing record and decision. The Board emphasized adherence to procedures even for unrepresented claimants and encouraged seeking assistance from the Information and Assistance officer.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceTrialWitness Testimony
References
5
Case No. ADJ8418853
Regular
Oct 22, 2013

ANA ORELLANA vs. AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC., C.N.A.; administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order regarding a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) selection. The Board also denied the Defendant's request for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Defendant argued the Applicant should be re-evaluated by the same QME from a prior, unrepresented claim, but the Board adopted the Judge's reasoning that the Applicant, now represented, is entitled to a new QME panel for the distinct, current claim. The Board determined the distinction between represented and unrepresented employee QME procedures supported the entitlement to a new panel, overriding the Defendant's argument for re-evaluation by the prior QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmCumulative TraumaPanel QMEUnrepresented Employee
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine, & Furniture Workers v. Unisys Corp.

This case involves a consolidated class action against Unisys Corporation and The Unisys Corporation Medical Plan, alleging unlawful changes to retiree medical benefits under LMRA, ERISA, and common law. The Court had conditionally certified a settlement class and preliminarily approved a Stipulation of Settlement, which included a 'Bar Notice' aimed at unrepresented persons concerning settlement trust accounts. Plaintiffs from related actions, seeking to intervene, argued the Bar Notice violated due process rights. The Court denied the application for leave to intervene but granted the proposed intervenors amicus curiae status. Significantly, the Court vacated its prior approval of the Bar Notice, ruling that its attempt to extinguish claims of unrepresented individuals was contrary to Second Circuit law, particularly the precedent set by National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange.

Class ActionInterventionSettlement AgreementBar NoticeERISALMRADue ProcessRes JudicataRetiree BenefitsTrust Funds
References
13
Case No. ADJ7446535, ADJ7471105
Regular
Mar 07, 2012

Jerry Bonds vs. American Institute of Technology Inc., Chartis

Applicant Jerry Bonds, unrepresented, filed a document requesting a change of venue, alleging bias from the Presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge. The Board dismissed the petition for disqualification, construing it as such. The case is returned to the trial level for the appropriate judge to rule on the change of venue request.

Petition for DisqualificationChange of VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJImpartialityDistrict OfficeTrial LevelDispositionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissed
References
0
Case No. SJO 0245781
Significant

Michael A. Willette vs. Au Electric Corporation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, outlines the mandatory procedure for resolving post-utilization review medical treatment disputes for unrepresented employees, requiring the use of a panel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The prior decision was rescinded and the case was remanded to follow this new procedure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjuryTailbone InjuryAlarm InstallerState Compensation Insurance FundUtilization Review Reports
References
26
Case No. SJO 0245781
En Banc

Michael A. Willette vs. AU Electric Corporation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, holds that medical treatment disputes for unrepresented employees following a utilization review must be resolved by a panel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The reports from the QME, treating physician, and utilization review physician are all admissible. The prior award was rescinded and the case was remanded to follow this procedure.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow BackTailboneAlarm InstallerState Compensation Insurance FundMedical TreatmentUtilization Review
References
25
Case No. ADJ6552779
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

LOUIE BLACKMON vs. THE HOME DEPOT, SEDGWICK 14442 ORANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed against a final order. The WCJ had previously denied the applicant's petition for commutation without prejudice, citing failure to serve the defendant and lack of substantiating documentation. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a status conference to assist the unrepresented applicant with understanding commutation requirements.

CommutationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Denying Without PrejudiceStipulated Findings and AwardNewly Discovered EvidenceProof of ServiceFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Substantive Rights and LiabilitiesInformation and Assistance Office
References
5
Case No. SBR 0333712
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

DAVID CABRERA vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for such extraordinary relief. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which detailed ongoing discovery disputes, medical treatment, and the unrepresented applicant's engagement with the process. Reassignment of the case to a different WCJ was deemed premature as no trial date had been set.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryWCJ ReportStipulation with Request for AwardDisapprovedPermanent and StationaryActive TreatmentQualified Medical Examiner (QME)
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 53 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