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. GOL 0093796
Regular
Apr 19, 2007

John Andersen vs. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Court of Appeal held that the City of Santa Barbara violated Labor Code section 132a by requiring an employee injured on the job to use vacation time for medical appointments while allowing others to use sick leave. While upholding the Board's decisions on permanent disability and apportionment, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine penalties and costs for the section 132a violation. The Appeals Board has now amended its prior decision to formally find a violation of Labor Code section 132a and returned the matter to the trial level for the determination of awards, fines, and costs.

Labor Code section 132aRemittiturPermanent disabilityApportionmentDiscriminationVacation timeSick leaveIndustrial injuryCourt of AppealWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ1034572
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

TROY BOWEN vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The applicant, Troy Bowen, alleged his employer, the Regents of the University of California, violated Labor Code § 132a by retaliating against him, leading to his termination. The WCJ found the applicant's allegations of discrimination and his version of events not credible. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, deferring to the judge's credibility determinations, and found no violation of Labor Code § 132a based on the evidence.

Labor Code § 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJcredibility determinationdiscriminationretaliatory conductterminationrestricted areaindustrial injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ3435344 (OAK 0335356), ADJ6942722
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

CHARLES KESECKER vs. MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding Labor Code section 4850 benefits but granted the defendant's petition regarding the Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to set aside the Compromise and Release agreement. However, it reversed the finding of a Labor Code section 132a violation, holding the employer's mandatory psychological fitness exam was a lawful requirement for peace officers, not discriminatory based on the industrial nature of the injury. Consequently, the $10,000 award for discrimination and associated attorney's fees were vacated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 4850Industrial InjuryPsycheHypertension
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silvas v. Bridgeview Investors, LLC

This case involves an appeal by plaintiffs in a wrongful death action. The decedent fell to his death from an unguarded sixth-floor balcony at a condominium construction site. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) against the building owners and general contractor. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the claims, and upon reargument, adhered to dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and fully dismissed the § 241(6) claim. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to provide admissible evidence that the decedent's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, or that the Industrial Code provision was inapplicable. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment on both Labor Law claims were denied, effectively reinstating the plaintiffs' claims.

Wrongful DeathLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseFall AccidentBalcony SafetyIndustrial CodeBuilding Owners
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IKEA U.S., Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals

This case concerns a petitioner who was found to have violated Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) for failing to pay weekly wages to manual workers. The initial determination by the Commissioner of Labor was confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, had previously confirmed this determination and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed the proceeding, treating it as properly transferred. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner employed manual workers and violated the Labor Law by using a bi-weekly payroll scheme instead of weekly payments. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court's judgment, confirmed the part of the determination finding the Labor Law violation, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

CPLR Article 78Labor Law ViolationWage PaymentManual WorkersBi-weekly PayrollSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionVacated JudgmentConfirmed DeterminationDismissed Petition
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2005

Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Plaintiff, a laborer on the Triborough Bridge, fell from a form while attempting to descend and re-ascend it due to the absence of a mechanical manlift. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). A jury found the defendant liable under Labor Law § 200 and found violations of Industrial Code provisions under § 241 (6), but only one, regarding insufficient illumination (12 NYCRR 23-1.30), was found to be a proximate cause. The defendant moved to vacate these verdicts. The Supreme Court set aside the § 241 (6) finding but remanded for a new trial, and denied the motion regarding the § 200 claim. On appeal, the higher court reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support the illumination violation and that any jury charge errors became irrelevant. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of defendant's supervisory control over plaintiff's work or notice of the dangerous condition, thus dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against the defendant.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightLabor Law 200Labor Law 241 (6)CPLR 4404 (a)Jury VerdictProximate CauseSupervisory ControlNotice of Dangerous ConditionIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.30
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawyer v. Rotterdam Ventures, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert E. Lawyer, an employee, suffered serious personal injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a sign on the defendant's building. He and his wife alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for the plaintiffs and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the nondelegable duty of owners under the statute. However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding Labor Law §§ 200 (1) and 241 (6), dismissing these causes of action due to a lack of specific regulation violations for § 241 (6) and no demonstration of supervisory control or notice for § 200 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction Site SafetyOwner LiabilityNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafe Workplace
References
30
Case No. ADJ4278593 (OAK 0340993) ADJ3322474 (OAK 0340995)
Regular
Jun 24, 2009

DIAHLO WALTON vs. YMCA OF THE EAST BAY, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition being unverified, violating Labor Code section 5902. Even if it were verified, the WCAB would have denied it, agreeing with the WCJ's previous findings. The applicant had alleged employer violations of Labor Code section 132a regarding pay status and sanctions, but these arguments were deemed insufficient on their merits. The defendant was also admonished for procedural errors in their answer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationDismissed PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code section 5902SanctionsAttorney FeesAdministrative LeaveNon-Pay Status
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,031 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