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
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 534723
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Justo Rios

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Justo Rios was injured at a construction site and sought benefits, naming Rockaway Contracting Corp. as his employer. Rockaway disputed this and, during its application for Workers' Compensation Board review, attempted to introduce new evidence via affidavits from personnel of another potential employer. The Board refused to consider the new evidence, citing Rockaway's failure to adequately explain why it was not presented earlier before the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ), and affirmed the WCLJ's decision holding Rockaway responsible. Rockaway appealed the denial of reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious conduct or abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider the belatedly submitted evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate ReviewBoard ReviewReconsideration DenialAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of EvidenceAffidavit SubmissionConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Rios v. Rockaway Contr. Corp.

Claimant Justo Rios was injured in 2018 while working at a construction site and filed a workers' compensation claim, naming Rockaway Contracting Corp. as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Rockaway to be the responsible employer. Rockaway sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board and attempted to introduce new evidence in the form of affidavits, but the Board refused to consider it, citing Rockaway's failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the late submission. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. Rockaway's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider the new evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousLate Evidence SubmissionConstruction Site InjuryProcedural Due Process
References
11
Case No. ADJ10155146
Regular
Aug 03, 2017

FIDEL RIOS (Deceased), MARIO RIOS, YESENIA RIOS vs. LAMONICA'S PIZZA DOUGH COMPANY, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied a petition for removal filed by the applicant. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. Furthermore, the Board determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision be issued later. The applicant can address discovery concerns with the WCJ during trial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyAME reportsfurther discoverytrialADJ10155146Anaheim District Office
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2012

Rios v. Town of Huntington Housing Authority

Maritza Rios, a Section 8 housing participant, faced termination from the program after a felony assault conviction. An informal hearing officer initially ruled against termination, citing self-defense and her good character. However, the Town of Huntington Housing Authority (PHA) overturned this decision, claiming the hearing officer misapplied regulations and improperly considered mitigating circumstances. Rios sought a preliminary injunction in federal court, alleging due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1983. The Court denied her motion, stating that the case was better suited for an Article 78 proceeding in state court and that Rios had received adequate pre-deprivation process. The Court expressed skepticism about the PHA's rationale but maintained that assessing the PHA's decision's validity was beyond its current role.

Section 8 HousingHousing Choice Voucher ProgramDue ProcessPreliminary InjunctionArticle 78 ProceedingPublic Housing AuthorityAdministrative LawFelony AssaultTermination of BenefitsConstitutional Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Altamont Farms, Inc.

The plaintiffs, migrant farm workers, sought to enforce a Puerto Rican default judgment against Altamont Farms, Inc., a New York apple grower. Altamont contended that the Puerto Rican court lacked personal jurisdiction. Justice Lawrence E. Kahn, presiding in New York, determined that Altamont's voluntary filing of a job offer through the Federal Interstate Clearance System, which was transmitted to Puerto Rico for labor recruitment, established sufficient minimum contacts. The court ruled that Altamont's actions satisfied Puerto Rico's long-arm statute and met due process standards, thereby subjecting it to Puerto Rican jurisdiction. Consequently, the New York court granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the judgment under full faith and credit principles and also ordered the consolidation of related cases.

Personal JurisdictionFull Faith and CreditLong-Arm StatuteMinimum ContactsDue ProcessWagner-Peyser ActMigrant Farm WorkersDefault Judgment EnforcementInterstate Clearance SystemJudicial Consolidation
References
9
Case No. ADJ9556841
Regular
Aug 15, 2016

SOFIA RIOS vs. TULARE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ALPHA FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award to Sofia Rios. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator did not engage in ex parte communication by sending a questionnaire and that his reports constituted substantial medical evidence. The employer's arguments that the doctor relied on personal anecdotes and an inaccurate assessment of lift team availability were rejected. The Board affirmed the original award based on the substantial evidence in the medical reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationSubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code Section 5909TollingReasonable Medical ProbabilityInadequate Medical HistoriesCausation Analysis
References
5
Case No. ADJ7357973
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

Pete Rios vs. Peppertree Distributors, Inc., FirstComp Omaha for Southern Insurance Company

This case concerns Pete Rios' workers' compensation claim, where the Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration. The applicant argued that temporary disability benefits should not be terminated based on a narrow interpretation of Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2). However, the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the applicant's injury date of April 24, 2009, falls under LC 4656(c)(2), which limits benefits to 104 weeks within five years from the injury date. The Board noted that jurisdiction remains open for penalties and sanctions regarding delayed temporary disability payments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPete RiosPeppertree DistributorsInc.FirstComp OmahaSouthern Insurance CompanyOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeTemporary Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ 1478335 (SAC 0317387)
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

GILROY SMITH (Deceased), ILIANA SMITH, ET AL. vs. RIO LINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a deceased food service worker, Gilroy Smith, whose dependents, Iliana Smith et al., sought workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award after the employer, Rio Linda Unified School District, and the applicants filed petitions. The WCAB ultimately affirmed the original award, which found the admitted industrial injury caused 39% permanent disability and death due to an aggravation of hepatitis C. The employer's contention that the injury did not cause death was rejected, and the applicants' claim for temporary disability was also affirmed implicitly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityDeath BenefitsHepatitis CQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryFood Service WorkerTemporary Disability IndemnitySubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walt v. GEICO General Insurance

Judge Rios concurs with the majority regarding the reversal of the judgment and the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, Rios dissents from searching the record to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, advocating for a remand for a trial. The purpose of the trial would be to ascertain the specific services provided by the plaintiff to its assignor. Rios emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between chiropractic services, for which workers’ compensation fee schedules exist, and acupuncture services, which may require a separate acupuncturist license and thus different fee schedule applicability, depending on whether the billed services fall within the scope of a chiropractor’s license.

Summary JudgmentReversalChiropractic ServicesAcupuncture ServicesWorkers' Compensation Fee SchedulesScope of PracticeProfessional LicensingMedical BillingRemandTrial
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 55 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