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. ADJ9859125, ADJ10002701, ADJ10647312
Regular
Sep 20, 2018

CHRISTOPHER RENFRO vs. YOUNG'S COMMERCIAL TRANSFER, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE, SWIFT TRANSPORTATION

Applicant filed petitions to disqualify the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) alleging bias and prejudice. The Appeals Board denied these petitions as untimely because the trial had already commenced and witnesses were sworn in. Furthermore, the Board found no evidence in the record to support the applicant's claims of bias or prejudice against the WCJ. The matters are returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Peremptory ChallengeDisqualification of JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCAB Rule 10453Labor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10452Bias and PrejudicePro Per ApplicantCumulative Trauma Injury
References
2
Case No. LAO 0806287
Regular
Dec 13, 2007

AURORA BARAJAS vs. THE MAINLAND COMPANY, INC. aka CRAZY SHIRTS, INC., ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Administered By ACE USA/ESIS, CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY Administered By REM, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION Administered By COMPLINK

The Appeals Board granted Shidu Chiropractic's petition for reconsideration and amended the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. While Shidu was properly notified of the lien trial, the WCJ erred by issuing a Notice of Intention to Disallow Lien Claim instead of a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, and by dismissing the lien with prejudice. The lien is now dismissed without prejudice, acknowledging potential procedural errors by the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationDismissal with PrejudiceNotice of Intention to DisallowNotice of Intention to DismissCompromise and ReleaseLien TrialGood CauseWithout Prejudice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. ADJ10302342 ADJ10302315
Regular
Oct 19, 2016

ANGELICA GOMEZ vs. BEST WESTERN NEWPORT MESA INN, EMPLOYERS COMPSENATION, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's decision to cancel a settlement conference and schedule a status conference. The defendant contested this, believing the cancellation was unnecessary and the status conference inappropriate. The WCJ recommended denial, stating the defendant failed to demonstrate the required prejudice. The Board agreed, concluding the WCJ's actions were reasonable for resolving a dispute over attorney deposition fees.

Petition for RemovalWCJMandatory Settlement ConferenceStatus ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessLabor Code section 5710deposition feessubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmWCAB
References
2
Case No. ADJ814506 (LAO 0730622)
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

MANUEL VALDOVINOS vs. ALTRA FILTERS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE for RELIANCE INSURANCE GROUP

The applicant and defendant jointly petitioned for removal and automatic reassignment of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged delays and prejudice, arguing the WCJ's actions violated their right to an expeditious adjudication. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding it untimely and lacking grounds for disqualification. The Board noted that removal is only granted for significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. However, the Board expressed concern over the alleged delays and urged the parties and WCJ to proceed expeditiously.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentJudge DisqualificationUntimely PetitionIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceOrder Vacating Order of SubmissionLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641
References
9
Case No. ADJ2321404 (MON 0309679)
Regular
May 15, 2009

GENERAL SMITH vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Permissibly Self-Insured, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order to proceed to trial is not a final order. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ had previously overruled the applicant's objection to setting the case for trial after it had been pending for over four years with multiple prior court appearances. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice, which was not demonstrated here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJMandatory Settlement Conferencediscoverynew injurycardiovascular injuryincomplete recorddevelop the record
References
5
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. ADJ4237156
Regular
Nov 15, 2011

CON HOWE vs. AMERIGAS by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves an applicant's petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias stemming from a prior incident. The applicant's attorney claimed the WCJ harbored enmity and would prejudice his clients. The WCJ, in his report, stated the incident would not affect his impartiality and all cases are decided on evidence. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the disqualification petition, finding no reason to doubt the WCJ's impartiality.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasEnmityMandatory Settlement ConferencesReport and RecommendationEvidence-based DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeApplicant's AttorneyCase ADJ4237156
References
0
Case No. ADJ8874049
Regular
Apr 18, 2014

VERN FLEMING vs. BROOKLYN NETS FKA NEW JERSEY NETS, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) recommendation. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate such prejudice or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the reasoning in the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ9400578
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

GERRIT VELD vs. CLIPPINGER CHEVROLET, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE, INC., SAFECO INSURANCE

Defendant sought removal of this workers' compensation case, alleging the WCJ's statements showed bias against them and would cause prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the statements were preliminary remarks based on submitted evidence. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to establish. Defendant also did not follow proper disqualification procedures.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasirreparable harmpreliminary remarksformal disqualificationsignificant prejudiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryleukemiamechanic
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,011 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