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. ADJ1174751 (SAC 0331800), ADJ6448656, ADJ6448658
Regular
May 22, 2008

LAWRENCE BURNELL vs. SOLANO GARBAGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in one case (ADJ1174751) and denied it in two others (ADJ6448656 and ADJ6448658). For the granted case, the Board amended the decision to find no permanent disability due to a back injury, based on a later medical report that superseded an earlier one. Reconsideration was denied in the other two cases, as the defendant failed to prove overlap of disability for apportionment purposes as required by law. The Board affirmed the original decisions in ADJ6448656 and ADJ6448658.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSolano GarbageLawrence BurnellADJ1174751ADJ6448656ADJ6448658ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Osorio v. Conway

Carlos Osorio, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1999 New York state conviction for various crimes, including burglary and robbery. He argued insufficient evidence, improper jury instructions on identification, erroneous admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The District Court, presided over by Judge Chin, denied the petition. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, the jury charge was proper, and the evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the court determined that the prosecutor's comments did not violate due process and Osorio's counsel provided effective assistance, having conveyed plea offers and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding an alibi defense. Consequently, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidencePretrial IdentificationDue ProcessCriminal ProcedureState ConvictionFederal Review
References
51
Case No. ADJ234009 (OAK 0324352) ADJ3704382 (OAK 0335469)
Regular
Jan 12, 2010

Carole Young vs. IPC SECURITY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ABM adjusted by ESIS

The applicant sought removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) alleging bias due to denied trial requests, refusal to consider evidence, and case delays. The Appeals Board denied the removal and disqualification, stating a subjective perception of bias is insufficient grounds. The Board returned the case to the Presiding WCJ to address the defendant's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardremovaldisqualificationworkers' compensation judge (WCJ)biasvexatious litigantPWCJWCAB Rule 10782applicantdefendant
References
1
Case No. ADJ10250093
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

DENIS PADILLA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant, Denis Padilla, versus their employer, Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Padilla's Petition for Reconsideration in this matter. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion on DecisionPermit Self-InsuredADJ10250093Pomona District OfficeDenying PetitionWCJ ReportAdopted Opinion
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. ADJ11351216
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

SARA CREIGHTON vs. BEVERLY HOSPITAL

This case involved a defendant's petition for removal and reconsideration, treated as a disqualification petition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding the prior WCJ decision on employment was final, but applied the removal standard for the interlocutory issue of the case being taken off calendar. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal. Furthermore, the petition for disqualification lacked specific factual allegations to support claims of WCJ bias, and the Board reiterated that judicial expressions of opinion or adverse rulings do not constitute disqualifying bias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationRemovalThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueEmploymentStatute of LimitationsBiasPrejudice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Kimble v. McGinnis

Joseph Kimble, a pro se petitioner, filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 Erie County conviction for murder, robbery, and weapon possession. Kimble argued he was deprived of a fair trial due to the jury's inadvertent viewing of a brief autopsy videotape of the naked victim during trial. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended denying the petition, finding that although the incident was careless, it did not amount to a due process violation given its brevity, lack of gruesomeness, and the curative instructions provided to the jury. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, denying the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

habeas corpusdue processfair trialevidentiary errorautopsy videojury instructionprosecutorial misconductcircumstantial evidencemurder conviction challengerobbery conviction challenge
References
17
Case No. ADJ9214889
Regular
Dec 08, 2014

JIE BAI vs. PEBBLE BEACH, INTERCARE

This case involves applicant Jie Bai's petitions for reconsideration and removal stemming from two separate orders by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions, adopting the judge's reasoning. Reconsideration was denied regarding sanctions imposed on applicant's attorney for a late appearance, finding the attorney's tardiness and lack of excuse justified the sanction. Removal was denied regarding a change of venue to Salinas, as the judge found good cause based on the applicant's residence, injury location, and logistical convenience, despite the applicant's counsel's objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Imposing SanctionsOrder Changing VenueWorkers' Compensation JudgeLabor Code §5813Title 8CCR §10561Failure to Appear
References
0
Case No. ADJ2103088
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

DONNA FUNCHEON vs. SAN LEANDRO HOSPITAL, CNA CLAIMS PLUS, AMERICAN CASUALTY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

This case involves Zurich American Insurance petitioning for reconsideration of an order awarding applicant's counsel $181,883.97 in attorney fees based on a finding of permanent total disability. Zurich argued that their subsequent petition for a writ of review stayed the attorney fee order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, clarifying that a writ petition does not automatically stay or suspend the effect of a WCAB decision. The Board further noted that execution of an award requires a certified copy, which is not issued during pending judicial review, but warned Zurich of potential penalties for non-payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney FeesPermanently Totally DisabledWrit of ReviewLabor Code § 5956Certified CopyCivil JudgmentLabor Code § 5814Penalty
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 27,204 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