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. ADJ3632632 (BGN 0063300) ADJ2683905 (BGN 0063302)
Regular
May 01, 2017

HARDISTENE HOWARD vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The applicant filed a petition to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge, but it is being dismissed by the Appeals Board. The petition is dismissed because it was not verified as required by WCAB Rule 10450(e). Additionally, the applicant failed to properly serve the petition on the adverse parties, violating WCAB Rule 10450(f). The applicant had notice of the defect and failed to cure it within a reasonable time.

Petition for DisqualificationUnverified PetitionFailure to ServeWCAB Rule 10450DismissalAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdverse PartiesVerification DefectGood Cause
References
0
Case No. ADJ8924427
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

JAVIER CHAVARRIA vs. JUAN RAMON VASQUEZ doing business as JRV CONSTRUCTION, INC., TOWER SELECT INSURANCE, CHRISTINE BAKER, DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, as administrator of the UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Tower Select Insurance's petition for removal due to multiple procedural defects. The petition, styled as a request to reset trial dates and strike the record, was not properly verified as required by WCAB Rule 10450(e). Furthermore, the petition lacked specific references to the record and legal principles, violating WCAB Rule 10846. The WCAB also noted that reconsideration is only available for final orders, and this petition did not meet that criterion.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJAVIER CHAVARRIAJUAN RAMON VASQUEZJRV CONSTRUCTIONTOWER SELECT INSURANCECHRISTINE BAKERUNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUNDPetition for RemovalWCJReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. ADJ11045133 ADJ11046176
Regular
Oct 24, 2019

JOHN QUIROGA vs. AK HVAC, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved two petitions for reconsideration that were dismissed for lack of proper verification, as required by Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rule 10450(e). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the WCJ's report, finding that notice of this defect was given and the petitioners failed to cure it. Had the petitions not been dismissed on procedural grounds, the WCAB would have denied them on the merits. Additionally, the lien claimants were admonished for failing to identify the signatory and for not adhering to formatting rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVerificationWCJ reportLucena v. Diablo Auto BodyLien ClaimantSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848Glendale Urgency Chiropractic ClinicZargaryan Acupuncture
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1995

Curran v. City of New York

The City of New York, as a defendant third-party plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated September 15, 1995. The original order had granted a motion by third-party defendant E.E. Cruz & Co., Inc. to dismiss the City's claim for common-law indemnification and contribution entirely. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that the dismissal should only apply to common-law indemnification up to the $1,000,000 limit of the Aetna insurance policy. This decision was based on the antisubrogation rule, as Aetna insured both the City and E.E. Cruz under the same policy. The modified order was subsequently affirmed.

Common-law indemnificationContributionAntisubrogation ruleInsurance policy limitsThird-party plaintiffThird-party defendantAppellate reviewPersonal injuries damagesInsurance lawMotion to dismiss
References
1
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. ADJ9671390; ADJ10457301
Regular
Dec 22, 2020

Santos Osorio vs. E.E. Hall, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. concerning an order for defendant E.E. Hall, Inc. to pay medical-legal copy service fees. The WCAB found the record insufficient, lacking clarity on submitted evidence, party arguments, or stipulations. Consequently, the original order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to establish a proper evidentiary basis for any decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical-Legal DisputeCopy Service FeesPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of IntentionLabor Code § 4622Second Bill Reviewinsufficient recordadmitted evidencePetition for Reimbursement
References
0
Case No. ADJ9938323
Regular
Aug 19, 2015

PIO HERNANDEZ VARGAS vs. LOS ARBOLES HARVESTING, INC., CALIFORNIA FARM MANAGEMENT, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to be verified, as required by WCAB Rules 10843(b) and 10450(e). The applicant was given notice of this defect but failed to cure it within a reasonable time. Even if it hadn't been dismissed for lack of verification, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesWCJ ReportDismissalVerification DefectNotice of DefectCure DefectCompelling ReasonPrejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia De Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. (Plaintiff) had petitioned to confirm a $21 million arbitration award against the Republic of Peru, Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, and Programa Agua Para Todos (Defendants). The Court dismissed the action due to forum non conveniens following a mandate from the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, Defendants moved for attorneys' fees and costs amounting to over $1.1 million. The Court denied this motion, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs the availability of attorneys' fees, and neither the FAA nor the parties' original agreement provides for such an award. The Court also rejected arguments regarding the applicability of Peruvian law and any alleged concession by the Plaintiff on fees.

Arbitration AwardForum Non ConveniensAttorneys' FeesFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationJudicial DiscretionContractual DisputeCivil ProcedureSecond CircuitMotion to Dismiss
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 11,137 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