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. ADJ7467289
Regular
Nov 30, 2012

RONALD ROBINSON vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, JT2 INTEGRATED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that good cause did not exist to set aside a Compromise and Release agreement. The Administrative Law Judge found the defendant's claimed mutual mistake was unilateral, stemming from the defendant's own oversight in failing to notice the applicant's unsigned Addendum A and signing the agreement without the applicant's signature. The defendant's argument of mutual mistake regarding the scope of the settlement and a prior stipulation was insufficient to warrant setting aside the agreement. The Board also admonished the defendant for submitting unnecessary documents, violating a procedural rule.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeFraudDuressUndue InfluenceStipulation and AwardCumulative TraumaAddendum A
References
0
Case No. ADJ6697300
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

Lorenzo Yanez vs. Universal Label Printers, Sparta Insurance Company, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

This case involves an insurance dispute over contribution liability for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Lorenzo Yanez, sustained an injury while employed by Universal Label Printers, with coverage from Sparta Insurance Company and Employers Compensation Insurance Company. A Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement was approved, which included an addendum purportedly allocating liability between Sparta (17%) and Employers (87%). Sparta sought to enforce this addendum for reimbursement, but the trial judge denied their petition, finding a lack of jurisdiction due to no separate petition for contribution being filed within the statutory one-year period. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding continuing jurisdiction to enforce the C&R and its addendum under Labor Code section 5803, and returned the matter to the trial judge to determine the enforceability and terms of the addendum.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ContributionLabor Code Section 5500.5Continuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5803Apportionment of Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ10190746 ADJ10190618
Regular
Aug 24, 2018

JOSE CARDENAS vs. A&M PROPERTIES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST GROUP

In *Cardenas v. A&M Properties*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition deficient because it was unsigned and unverified, violating WCAB rules. Furthermore, the accompanying proof of service was also unsigned, which is a valid ground for summary dismissal. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Removal dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843(b)WCAB Rule 10450(e)WCAB Rule 10450(f)WCAB Rule 10850unsigned petitionunverified petitionproof of servicesummarily dismissingoff calendar
References
0
Case No. ADJ1686645 (MON 0304932) ADJ2613870 (MON 0350315)
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

MARY ELLEN DAMENT vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a decision disallowing lien claimant Dr. Silver's claim. The Board found inconsistencies in the record regarding unsigned medical reports and a specific report's admission into evidence. The case was returned to the trial level for clarification of the record and a new decision. The Board noted the lack of objection to unsigned reports and the potential for Dr. Silver to provide signed copies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantDisallow Lien ClaimReconsiderationUnsigned ReportsMedical-Legal ReportingQualified Medical ExaminerOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleExtraordinary CircumstancesDevelop Record
References
4
Case No. ADJ9641921, ADJ9640385
Regular
Mar 29, 2016

PAZ CORRALES vs. KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP dba KHRG GOLETA, LLC, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) due to a problematic Addendum "A". Applicant contends Addendum "A" incorrectly settled their right to future attorney's fees and contains conflicting, unenforceable provisions regarding future claims and confidentiality. The Board found potential jurisdictional issues and inconsistencies with the law, returning the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the C&R should be set aside.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAddendum ALabor Code section 5710attorney's feesrescinded OACRevidentiary hearingmistake inadvertence excusable neglectunenforceable provisionsconfidential provision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Olczyk v. Verizon New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling to preclude an independent medical examiner's report and its addendum. The preclusion stemmed from the self-insured employer's failure to file the report with the Board within the mandated 10 business days, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 137. The appellate court upheld the Board's decision, concluding that both the original medical report and its addendum were properly excluded due to noncompliance with the statutory filing requirements.

Independent Medical ExaminationMedical Report PreclusionWorkers' Compensation BoardTimeliness RequirementsMedical EvidenceAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewComplianceProcedural RulesSelf-Insured Employer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Levine v. Health First (HF Management Services LLC)

Claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially denied claimant's application for review, finding it defective due to issues like an unsigned affirmation, lack of mailing date, and untimely service. The Board also denied claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division found issues with the record on appeal, specifically an allegation that claimant submitted a signed application for review to the court while the Board received an unsigned version. The court remitted the matter to the Board to certify the record and resolve this discrepancy, as well as to ensure proper filing procedures for the joint record on appeal.

Workers' CompensationAppealBoard ReviewUntimely NoticeService RequirementsRecord CertificationAppellate DivisionRemittalProcedural DefectsUnsigned Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Lower East Side Services Center, Inc.

This case addresses whether an unsigned written contract for indemnification is enforceable under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Lower East Side Service Center (LES), a building owner, sought contractual indemnification from Procida Realty and Construction Corp. (Procida), its general contractor, after a Procida employee sustained an injury. Although Procida performed work under the contract, it never formally signed the indemnification agreement. The lower courts deemed the unsigned contract unenforceable. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 does not explicitly require a signed agreement and that common-law principles allow for enforceability based on objective evidence of intent and course of conduct. The court granted summary judgment to LES, reinstating its contractual indemnification claim.

Workers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ClaimsUnsigned ContractsStatute of FraudsLegislative IntentCommon LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNew York State Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dahingo v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

This class action involves approximately 29,700 cruise ship employees who sued Royal Caribbean Cruise, Ltd. and Celebrity Cruise Lines for denied overtime pay, leading to an $18.4 million settlement. The current motion by class counsel addresses two types of rejected claims: those filed after the March 27, 2003 deadline and those submitted without a signature. The court, presided over by United States Magistrate Judge Francis, denied the request to accept late-filed claims, reasoning that it would increase the defendants' financial obligations beyond the negotiated settlement agreement. However, the court granted the request regarding unsigned claims, invoking New York's covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Consequently, the Claims Administrator was ordered to notify claimants with unsigned, but timely filed, forms and provide them a 60-day window to rectify the signature defect.

Class Action SettlementOvertime Pay DisputeCruise Ship EmployeesClaims AdministrationLate ClaimsUnsigned ClaimsEquitable Powers of CourtContract Law PrinciplesGood Faith and Fair DealingSettlement Fund Distribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 69 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