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. ADJ6585876
Regular
Aug 27, 2014

VICENTE JACKSON vs. NORTHRUP GRUMMAN CORPRATION, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This case concerns applicant Vicente Jackson's claim for cumulative trauma injury sustained while employed by Vought Aircraft in Georgia and Florida. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding of no subject matter jurisdiction. The Board found insufficient evidence that Vought's employment of Jackson constituted a continuation of his original California employment contract with Northrup. Acceptance of a new job offer in Florida from Vought created a new employment contract, superseding any prior California contract.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNorthrup GrummanInsurance Company of the State of PennsylvaniaVicente Jacksoncumulative traumasubject matter jurisdictioncontract of hireVought Aircraftoral employment contractservice credit
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schweizer Aircraft Corp. v. State Division of Human Rights

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Executive Law § 296 (10)(c), which prohibits employment discrimination based on sabbath observance unless it causes undue economic hardship to the employer. James Amrhein, a Seventh Day Adventist, was denied a machine operator position at Schweizer Aircraft Corporation because he could not work Friday evenings. The employer claimed accommodation was unworkable without attempting to contact other employees or the union. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Human Rights Appeal Board's determination that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving undue economic hardship, as it did not make a good faith effort to accommodate Amrhein's religious practice before denying employment.

DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceReligious AccommodationExecutive LawUndue Economic HardshipCollective Bargaining AgreementBurden of ProofShift ExchangeGood Faith EffortEmployment Law
References
0
Case No. ADJ887768 (MON 0029718), ADJ4445992 (MON 0029719)
Regular
Oct 22, 2014

BERNARD BILLIK vs. HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's (Hughes Aircraft Company) petition for reconsideration in the case of Bernard Billik. The Board adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report, which is incorporated into the order. A supplemental petition filed by the defendant was accepted, but a second supplemental petition was rejected and not considered. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationadministrative law judgesupplemental PetitionCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10848WCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureDEPUTYNEIL P. SULLIVAN
References
1
Case No. ADJ6939085
Regular
May 09, 2014

APACELY HERNANDEZ vs. ALLAN AIRCRAFT SUPPLY COMPANY, MARKEL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed petitions for reconsideration filed by Allan Aircraft Supply Company and Markel Services. The WCAB held that reconsideration can only be granted for final orders, not interlocutory procedural orders. Pre-trial orders concerning evidence, discovery, trial setting, or venue do not determine substantive rights and are therefore not subject to reconsideration. This dismissal aligns with established precedent defining final orders as those that determine substantive rights or liabilities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrdersSubstantive RightsLiabilityPre-trial OrdersDiscoveryVenue
References
5
Case No. ADJ887768 (MON 0029718) ADJ4445992 (MON 0029719)
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

BERNARD BILLIK vs. HUGHES AIRCRAFT, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a Petition for Removal filed by defendants Hughes Aircraft and their insurers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, emphasizing that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted, especially after trial has commenced or concluded. The WCAB found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial. The Board concluded that reconsideration following a final adverse decision would be an adequate remedy for the defendants.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportSubmitted for DecisionAdverse DecisionFinal DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ4280535 (VNO 0554134)
Regular
Dec 06, 2013

LUZ FLOREZ vs. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL insured by COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Luz Florez's petition for reconsideration against Aircraft Service International. The dismissal was based on the petition being unverified and untimely. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendation, which provided the reasons for dismissal. This order formally terminates Florez's reconsideration attempt in this case.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUnverifiedUntimelyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJReport and RecommendationRecordIncorporated
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korean Air Lines Co. v. McLean

This Memorandum & Order addresses a negligence counterclaim filed by Kamall A. McLean against Korean Airlines (KAL) following a ground collision at JFK Airport on June 9, 2009. A KAL cargo aircraft struck McLean's stationary boom truck, which was parked on the taxiway shoulder within a construction zone. The court found KAL negligent due to its flight crew's failure to stop the aircraft after observing McLean's truck in close proximity to the wing. However, McLean was also found contributorily negligent for not illuminating his truck's beacon light. Additionally, Port Authority and Tully Construction Company were found negligent for failing to properly manage and communicate construction area safety, while Covenant Aviation Security and the FAA were cleared of negligence. Liability was apportioned as follows: KAL 10%, McLean 10%, Port Authority 55%, and Tully 25%, with the case now moving to a damages phase.

Aviation AccidentGround CollisionJFK AirportNegligenceComparative NegligenceProximate CauseDuty of CareAirport OperationsConstruction SafetyFlight Crew Responsibility
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Orzo v. Edo Aircraft

The case involves a claimant with a compensable injury from December 16, 1946, whose responsibility was assigned to the Special Fund. Following a subsequent compensable accident in May 1972, the board apportioned the disability, attributing 75% to the 1946 accident. The average weekly wage for the post-1972 disability was set at $102.50, leading to a $51.25 weekly award against the Special Fund. The Special Fund challenged this, citing Workers' Compensation Law section 15 (subd 6, par [j]), which caps compensation for accidents between June 1946 and July 1948 at $28 per week. While prior cases established that the maximum wage refers to the last accident in multiple accident scenarios, the court found that applying the $28 maximum in this instance would not negate payment entirely. Consequently, the court held that no public policy overruled the Legislature's explicit $28 weekly liability limit for the 1946 accident. The decision was modified, reducing the award against the Special Fund to $28 per week, and affirmed.

Special FundDisability ApportionmentMaximum Compensation RateMultiple AccidentsStatutory InterpretationPrior Judicial DeterminationsWage CalculationLegal PrecedentAward ModificationCompensation Law Section 15
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geddes v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

This Memorandum and Order addresses the proposed distribution of a $1,800,000.00 wrongful death settlement for the estate of Warren H. Geddes, who died in a plane crash. The plaintiffs, including the widow Leticia Geddes and three minor children, presented a distribution plan that substantially increased the widow's share compared to the 'In re Kaiser's Estate' formula. U.S. Magistrate Judge Chrein expressed concerns regarding this proposed allocation and the absence of a guardian ad litem to protect the minor children's interests. Acknowledging criticisms of the Kaiser formula, the court found insufficient justification for such a significant deviation in favor of the spouse. Consequently, the court ordered the appointment of a guardian ad litem due to the inherent conflict of interest and directed the plaintiffs to provide detailed documentation of expenditures made for the children's sole benefit.

Wrongful DeathSettlement DistributionGuardian Ad LitemInfant's InterestsPecuniary LossKaiser FormulaConflict of InterestAttorney FeesWorkers Compensation LienEstate Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 36 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