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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ9202893
Regular
Aug 29, 2016

JUAN JOSE ALVAREZ vs. FOOTHILL PACKING, INC.; SPARTA INSURANCE, Administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Foothill Packing's petition for reconsideration, rescinding Finding of Fact No. 5. This finding ambiguously stated the applicant suffered an industrial event to his neck, shoulder, hip, back, and chest based on his credible testimony. The Board found this finding redundant and misleading, as the WCJ also determined the record needed further development regarding these orthopedic injuries. Therefore, Finding of Fact No. 5 was rescinded, but the WCJ's decision to develop the record further on these claims was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderIndustrial injuryLabor Code section 5310Agreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial evidenceSpecific injuryThreshold issue
References
11
Case No. ADJ7322441, ADJ7322436, ADJ7322440
Regular
Feb 15, 2013

Richard L. Sanchez vs. American Building Supply Inc., The Hartford

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision which denied all benefits for applicant's three claimed injuries. The Board found the WCJ's original Findings and Order of June 28, 2011, were not properly addressed in the subsequent Findings and Fact. While acknowledging applicant's arguments regarding AME bias and new evidence, the Board found these contentions lacked merit or proper support. Ultimately, the Board rescinded the WCJ's November 29, 2012 decision and substituted its own Findings and Order, upholding the WCJ's original determination that applicant was not entitled to temporary disability, permanent disability, or future medical care for any of the three injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and FactAdministrative Law JudgeAgreed Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationSub Rosa FilmsPermanent Disability IndemnityTemporary Disability IndemnityFuture Medical Care
References
5
Case No. RDG 124972
Regular
Apr 15, 2008

DAVID BURKE vs. CITY OF NEVADA CITY, GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award was unclear, making it difficult to distinguish stipulated facts from the WCJ's actual findings. The Board rescinded the award, returning the case for further proceedings and a clearer decision from the WCJ, particularly regarding the basis for temporary disability findings. Defendant's contentions regarding industrial injury to the psyche and permanent disability were not reached at this time.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJStipulationsIndustrial InjuryPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. LAO 452456
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

Clennon Moore vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous Findings and Award because the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) failed to determine which version of Labor Code section 5814 applied to the applicant's claim for penalty payments. The WCJ also made conditional findings and left the exact penalty amount for future negotiation, which the Board found improper. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to make definitive findings of fact and law on all presented issues.

Labor Code section 5814unreasonable delaycompensation penaltiesFindings and AwardreconsiderationrescindedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJdate of injurytemporary disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ9746664
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

CANDACE MARTINEZ vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not a credible witness regarding her neck and back injury claims, as she failed to meet her burden of proof. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's medical evidence lacked substantiality and did not explain the mechanism of injury. However, the Board rescinded the prior order that the applicant take nothing, recognizing a stipulation and WCJ finding of industrial injury to the applicant's shoulders. Therefore, the applicant's findings of fact for the shoulders are affirmed, but her claims for neck and back injuries were denied based on credibility and lack of evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationPreponderance of the EvidenceIndustrial InjuryMechanism of InjurySubstantial EvidenceStipulationIndustrial Injury to Shoulders
References
2
Case No. ADJ13157138
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

EDDY PUTMAN vs. BALTIMORE ORIOLES, USF&G, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued on June 12, 2025, which awarded applicant temporary and permanent disability. The defendant contested the retroactive disability awards, the calculation of the average weekly wage, and the admissibility of medical reports by Dr. Michael Einbund, given a later date of injury finding. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings regarding the disability awards, the applicant's average weekly wage, and the admissibility of Dr. Einbund's reports, reasoning that the claim's injury period predated January 1, 2005, making the old procedural rules applicable.

Permanent DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412PQMEPetition for ReconsiderationAverage Weekly WageAdmissibility of Medical ReportsLabor Code Section 4062.2Substantial Medical Evidence
References
11
Case No. VNO 0450531
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

NELSON PIMENTEL (Deceased) CLAUDIA CISNEROS, Guardian Ad Litem for SUMMER PIMENTEL vs. DAYNITE FACILITIES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address an attorney's fee dispute and a request for disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCAB increased the attorney's fee awarded to Ronald Ehrman to $4,800.00, finding that he had cured prior notification defects regarding his adverse interest in seeking additional fees. Additionally, the WCAB disqualified the original WCJ, finding that his criticisms of Ehrman's conduct created an appearance of bias, and reassigned the case to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsAttorney's FeesGuardian Ad LitemReconsiderationDisqualificationWCJAdverse InterestEthics ViolationsPenalties
References
3
Case No. ADJ16407644
Regular
May 09, 2025

ANDREW PADILLA vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL

Applicant Andrew Padilla sought reconsideration of a Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) on February 12, 2025. The WCJ had found no basis for relief under Labor Code section 5813 with respect to defendants' alleged discovery issues, specifically declining to impose sanctions. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, adopted the WCJ's findings and denied reconsideration. The decision was issued timely within the 60-day statutory period as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5813SanctionsDiscoverySub Rosa VideoPQMEDepositionQuash DepositionMandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 20,000 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