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. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liquid Asphalt Distributors Ass'n v. Roberts

The case concerns the interpretation of the 1983 amendments to Labor Law § 220, which govern prevailing wage rates for workers on public projects. Prior to 1983, the statute required extensive surveys to determine prevailing wages. The amendments aimed to streamline this by allowing the adoption of collectively bargained wage rates if 30% of workers in a specific trade and locality were subject to such agreements, and redefined 'locality' based on these agreements. Petitioners, Suit-Kote Corporation and Liquid Asphalt Distributors Association, Inc., challenged a wage schedule set by the respondent for asphalt distributors, arguing the respondent failed to verify the 30% threshold and that the threshold was not met. The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the 1983 amendments shifted the burden of proof to employers to demonstrate that less than 30% of workers were subject to the adopted wage rate, a burden the petitioners failed to meet with sufficient evidence.

Prevailing wageLabor Law § 220Collective bargaining agreementsStatutory interpretationBurden of proofPublic worksWage schedulesAppellate reviewIndustrial relationsLegislative intent
References
2
Case No. ADJ2773730 (VNO 0546451) ADJ8941760
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

ALVIN BLADES vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award primarily concerning the weekly payment rate for permanent disability. Initially, the Board affirmed an award but later amended it to reflect a stipulation for a $230 weekly rate. The applicant's subsequent petitions, including one allegedly misplaced by the WCAB system, argued for higher statutory rates of $270 and $310.50 per week. The Board granted further reconsideration, finding the applicant's petitions timely and agreeing that an oversight occurred regarding the correct payment rates, thus amending the award to reflect the higher statutory amounts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlvin BladesCity of PasadenaADJ2773730ReconsiderationFindings of FactPermanent DisabilityLife PensionAttorney's FeesStipulated Award
References
1
Case No. ADJ12533356
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

PERRY MOREFIELD vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

This case was remanded by the Court of Appeal due to an error in the applicant's permanent disability rating. The Appeals Board's prior decision has been amended to reflect a corrected permanent disability rating of 47%. This amended rating warrants an award of $72,500.00 in permanent disability indemnity, payable over 250 weeks. Attorney's fees have also been adjusted accordingly, totaling $12,181.13.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemandCourt of AppealPermanent Disability RatingPermanent Disability IndemnityAttorney's FeesFindings of FactAwardReconsiderationAnnulment
References
2
Case No. ADJ4173733 (GRO 0033459) ADJ7235201
Regular
May 08, 2014

DONALD LUTES vs. NEW WEST COOLING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved an appeal by SCIF regarding permanent disability indemnity rates. The WCJ initially awarded $230/week for both case numbers, but SCIF argued the 2004 injury date in ADJ4173733 limited the rate to $200/week. The WCJ acknowledged this oversight and recommended the amendment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the award but amending the indemnity rate for ADJ4173733 to $200/week, totaling $18,100, and adjusting attorney fees accordingly.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJState Compensation Insurance FundDate of InjuryPermanent Disability IndemnityAttorney Fees
References
0
Case No. ADJ3483133 (LBO 0389333)
Regular
Jan 31, 2011

GENE BROWN vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, OLD REPUBLIC

In this case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding a left shoulder injury and $12\%$ permanent disability for the applicant, Gene Brown. The core dispute involved a clerical error in the permanent disability indemnity rate, which was initially awarded at $\$270.00$ per week instead of the correct statutory rate of $\$230.00$. While the WCJ amended the award to correct the indemnity rate, this correction did not proportionately adjust the attorney fees. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded both the original and amended decisions, and returned the matter to the trial level for recalculation of attorney fees and a new decision.

Permanent disability indemnityReconsiderationClerical errorIndemnity rateAmended Findings and AwardLabor Code sections 4658(d)Labor Code sections 4660(d)Offer of modified workAttorney feesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ13385386
Regular
Nov 17, 2020

ABRAHAM BERNAL vs. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend the original decision regarding applicant Abraham Bernal's average weekly wage. The WCAB found the prior calculation of $\$1,383.39$ per week was erroneous as it diluted the applicant's earning capacity by using a lower hourly wage than his rate at the time of injury. The Board recalculated the average weekly wage based on actual hours worked, including overtime and holiday pay, at the applicant's established $\$27.00$ per hour rate. This resulted in an amended average weekly wage of $\$1,414.26$, increasing the temporary disability indemnity rate to $\$942.84$ per week.

ADJ13385386NIAGARA BOTTLING LLCSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANYVan Nuys District OfficePETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAVERAGE WEEKLY WAGESTEMPORARY DISABILITY INDEMNITYLABOR CODE § 4453(c)EARNING CAPACITYREGULAR WAGE
References
2
Case No. 534485
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of William Grimaldi

Claimant William Grimaldi sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and 2008. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially erred in calculating the payment rate for the 2007 claim, leading to a prior appeal where this Court remitted the matter for re-computation based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of the 2007 injury for awards made after December 23, 2013. In a May 2021 decision, the Board correctly applied the rate but limited its application to a specific period and reduced counsel fees. While claimant's subsequent appeal of this May 2021 decision was pending, the Board, on its own motion, reviewed and amended its decision in June 2022. The amended decision directed that all continuing awards for the 2007 claim be paid at the rate based on the 2007 earnings and granted the full requested counsel fees. As the Board's subsequent decision rendered the appeal moot, this Court dismissed the appeal and assessed costs against the Workers' Compensation Board for the expenses incurred by the claimant in perfecting an unnecessary appeal.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewMootnessWage Earning CapacityPayment RateAverage Weekly WageCounsel FeesBoard ReconsiderationCosts on AppealPermanent Partial Disability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 5,080 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