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

Cross v. Bell Helmets, USA

The court considered and denied the Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend and for remand in a products liability case. The Plaintiff sought to cap the defendant's liability at $50,000 to divest the federal court of diversity jurisdiction. The court determined that the case was properly removed from state court, finding that the amount in controversy "facially apparent" exceeded $50,000, given the claims for exemplary damages and severe head injuries. Citing precedent, the court affirmed that post-removal stipulations to reduce damages cannot divest a federal court of jurisdiction once it has attached. The court emphasized that any stipulation to limit damages to avoid federal jurisdiction must be made in state court prior to removal.

Products LiabilityFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionAmount in ControversyMotion to AmendMotion to RemandPost-Removal StipulationDamagesPunitive Damages
References
21
Case No. ADJ10160405
Regular
Dec 17, 2019

JEFFREY JENSEN vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This decision addresses Jeffrey Jensen's workers' compensation claim against the California Department of Transportation. The Appeals Board affirmed the prior findings and award with a minor amendment. The amendment clarifies that the applicant stipulated to sustaining injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his head, neck, low back, shoulders, and knees. This amendment ensures consistency with the stipulated facts and awarded benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulationAOE/COEAmended Findings and AwardSupervising Environmental PlannerCalifornia Department of TransportationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundHead Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ7627051
Regular
Apr 26, 2012

ALEJANDRA AMBRIZ vs. ACCENT CARE, INC.; AIG INSURANCE administered by SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award approving stipulations for an applicant's industrial injury. The defendant sought reconsideration due to a mutual mistake in calculating permanent disability. Subsequently, the parties agreed to amend the original stipulations and the defendant withdrew its petition. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter to the trial judge to consider the amended stipulations.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityMutual Mistake of FactStipulation Amending Stipulated AwardRescind AwardReturned to Trial LevelWCJ DecisionAdjudication
References
0
Case No. ADJ8211594
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

ERROL GRIFFIN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a dispute over the applicant's average weekly wage (AWW) for temporary disability benefits. Initially, the parties stipulated to an AWW of $1,676.04, but the defendant sought reconsideration based on mutual mistake, claiming the correct AWW was $859.16. Subsequently, both parties filed an amended stipulation agreeing to an AWW of $800.07. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the issue of temporary disability indemnity and returned the matter to the WCJ to consider the amended stipulation and determine the correct benefits.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityStipulated FactsMutual MistakeAverage Weekly WageAmended StipulationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJMutual Mistake
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Powell v. N.C.A. Operating Corp.

The claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his applications to reopen his claim. The injury occurred in December 1962, with the final lump sum payment of benefits made in September 1969. The claimant's subsequent applications to reopen, filed in January 1983 and December 1986, were deemed untimely by the Board. The court affirmed this decision, referencing Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, which stipulates an 18-year limitation from the injury date or an 8-year limitation from the last compensation payment. Both of the claimant's applications were filed beyond these statutory periods.

Workers' Compensation AppealClaim ReopeningStatute of LimitationsTimeliness DenialLump Sum SettlementWorkers’ Compensation Law Section 12318-year Statute of Limitations8-year Statute of LimitationsFinal Payment DateInjury Date
References
0
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
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. ADJ4667602
Regular
Nov 12, 2008

ROBERT ULEP vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board is affirming an existing award but amending it to include previously stipulated terms in paragraphs 8 and 9. This amendment is being made after the Board issued a notice of intention to approve these stipulations, and no objections were filed. Consequently, the original award is now formally modified to incorporate these agreed-upon provisions.

Robert UlepCounty of SacramentoADJ4667602SAC 0368522Opinion and DecisionReconsiderationAwardStipulationsParagraphs 8 and 9Rescind
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Lithuanian Workers' Literature Society

The Lithuanian Workers’ Literature Society appealed a Kings Special Term order denying its motion to amend its certificate of incorporation. The proposed amendment sought to broaden membership qualifications from adhering to the Socialist Party to not opposing "Marxian principles". The court scrutinized whether "Marxian principles" endorse the overthrow of government by force, which is criminal under state Penal Law. Citing Karl Marx's historical support for forceful revolutions (e.g., Paris Commune), the court concluded that these principles were broad enough to justify illegal propaganda. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed amendment would allow retention of members advocating "direct action" by force, contrary to the Socialist Party's recently amended platform promoting constitutional methods. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the amendment, refusing to sanction an organization whose principles could potentially endorse unlawful means.

Corporate AmendmentSocialismMarxian PrinciplesFreedom of AssociationPolitical PropagandaConstitutional LawPenal LawAppellate ReviewMembership Corporations LawDirect Action
References
6
Case No. ADJ6996040
Regular
Mar 11, 2011

JON RHODES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition. The Board found the petition was untimely, filed over 20 days after the original award, and also skeletal. The defendant had sought to amend a stipulated award regarding temporary disability benefits, but failed to meet procedural requirements for reconsideration. The parties are free to amend the stipulation at the trial level.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardTemporary Disability BenefitsTimelinessJurisdictional LimitSkeletal PetitionLabor Code § 5903Vacated OrderDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,594 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