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

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. ADJ6680842
Regular
Jan 31, 2013

BRUNO VARGAS vs. SELECT BUILD INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves Applicant Bruno Vargas and Defendants Select Build Integrated Construction Services and Gallagher Bassett. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a previous WCJ decision. The Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ. This order is not a final decision on the merits of the case.

WCABReconsiderationRescindedFurther ProceedingsWCJ DecisionAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantsIntegrated Construction ServicesGallagher Bassett
References
0
Case No. ADJ2093013 (SJO 0235147)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

ROBERTO BEJARANO vs. CHECKMATE/TOWER STAFFING, RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, OLD REPUBLIC

The WCAB granted reconsideration to address the petitioner's (Ryder Integrated Logistics) arguments regarding its special employer status. Petitioner contended that the administrative law judge (WCJ) improperly admitted evidence, including emails and a transportation contract, and failed to rule on a motion to exclude testimony. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that Ryder was the special employer, noting that formal authentication of evidence is not required in WCAB proceedings and that the contract and credible witness testimony supported the finding. The Board also granted reconsideration to correct clerical errors in the original award regarding exhibit numbering and the recipient of the award.

Special employerGeneral employerReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative law judgeIllegally uninsuredTransportation contractAdmissible evidenceClerical errorWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ18158502
Regular
Aug 14, 2025

Sandra Pleasure vs. G2-Pacific Bell Network Integration, Old Republic Insurance Company

The defendant, G2-Pacific Bell Network Integration and Old Republic Insurance Company, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) May 19, 2025 finding that applicant Sandra Pleasure's claim for a left knee injury was barred by laches. The defendant argued lack of employment during the claimed period and that the injury was specific, barring the claim by the statute of limitations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, determining the defendant was not an aggrieved party since the WCJ's decision already precluded the applicant's claim against them due to laches. The Board also noted the defendant failed to present evidence on employment at trial and cautioned against frivolous petitions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedAggrieved PartyStatute of LimitationsLachesLeft Knee InjuryEmploymentDate of InjurySpecific Injury
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06969 [211 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Integrity Intl., Inc. v. HP, Inc.

Plaintiff, Integrity International, Inc., doing business as Tarrenpoint, sued defendants, HP, Inc., for breach of service agreements dating from 1994 to 2016, primarily concerning defendants' alleged failure to make timely payments and pay late fees. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing as time-barred, and also dismissing claims for late fees, finding them not contemplated by the agreements. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal regarding late fees and the timeliness of breach of contract claims. However, the Appellate Division found triable issues of fact concerning whether defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by diverting clients and workers. The court also held that limitation of liability clauses in the agreements were enforceable, precluding consequential damages but allowing for the recovery of general damages.

Contract DisputeTimely PaymentLate FeesSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsImplied CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingLimitation of LiabilityConsequential DamagesGeneral Damages
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. ADJ7948651
Regular
May 09, 2016

Barbara Tom vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, JT2 INTEGRATED

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by the defendant, City of Oakland, following an award of permanent disability to applicant Barbara Tom. The defendant argued the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred by not deferring to the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion and by not developing the record with the AME. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the AME's opinion deficient. The WCJ's report detailed how the primary treating physician's report was more persuasive and thoroughly reasoned, supporting the WCJ's findings over the AME's.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Primary Treating Physician (PTP)AMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSubstantial EvidenceWCJ OpinionMedical Opinion Deference
References
2
Case No. ADJ8501384
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

ARTEMIO VASQUEZ vs. INTEGRAL SENIOR LIVING, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Artemio Vasquez, against Integral Senior Living and Helmsman Management Services. The applicant sought removal due to incomplete discovery, specifically concerning a neurologist, internist, and sleep study, and alleged prejudice from proceeding to trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report. The Board found the objection untimely, noted the applicant's failure to object to the Declaration of Readiness or diligently pursue discovery, and concluded that any issues with the PQME report could be addressed by the trial judge or via post-trial remedies, thus not causing irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAOE/COE
References
0
Case No. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,302 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