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. ADJ3235679
Regular
May 10, 2011

JENNIFER MILLER vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a. The defendant argued the finding of discrimination was speculative and lacked sufficient evidence. The Board is granting reconsideration to thoroughly review the case, especially given the absence of the applicant's response to the petition. An order was issued requiring the applicant to submit a copy of her answer for the Board's review.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationreconsiderationFindings and Awardapplicantdefendantworkers' compensation judgeWCJReport and Recommendationdue process
References
1
Case No. ADJ9242952 (MF) ADJ9242953
Regular
May 15, 2018

KERRINA CRAGUN vs. VARGO PHYSICAL THERAPY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that affirmed a joint findings award. Applicant argued the defendant's answer was procedurally flawed and contained factual inaccuracies, warranting penalties for unreasonable delay of medical treatment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that while the defendant violated a rule by attaching exhibits, the violation did not invalidate their answer. The Board also found the factual inaccuracy in the answer was not an intentional misrepresentation, and that it lacked jurisdiction to order a physician to treat the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical Review (IMR)WCAB Rule 10842Secondary Treating PhysicianStipulation and AwardSanctions
References
2
Case No. ADJ5690219
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

TOM PALLADINO vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on applicant's attorney. This action stems from alleged false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the attorney in the applicant's Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found no evidence to support the claims of intentional delay by the defendant and determined the attorney's statements to be without merit and potentially prejudicial. The attorney and his firm face a $750 sanction unless good cause is shown why it should not be imposed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Attorney Misconduct
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. ADJ7014135
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

VIANEY VARGAS vs. SELECT STAFFING, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition, refusing to answer questions related to her identifying information and potential prior claims. The defendant sought to bar benefits, arguing the applicant's refusal hindered discovery necessary to determine liability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, recognizing that while the applicant cannot be compelled to incriminate herself, she also cannot use the privilege to shield herself from providing relevant information needed for the defense. The Board remanded the case for the WCJ to determine which specific questions are directly relevant to the litigation, allowing the applicant to answer them or face potential dismissal of her claim.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Order Suspending Action and Barring BenefitsPetition for SanctionsFifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationDue ProcessCross-examinationDiscoveryDirectly RelevantLabor Code 4050
References
6
Case No. LAO 0863476
Regular
Jul 31, 2007

MARIA ANA PAREDES (Deceased) CARLOS ALFREDO ALVAREZ vs. ANDROMEDA ENTERTAINMENT INC., dba CLUB GALAXY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the judge's denial of a motion to compel, and ordered the applicant to answer deposition questions. The Board found that the applicant's attorney improperly instructed the applicant not to answer questions regarding financial support in El Salvador and employment history, as such questions were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under liberal discovery rules. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it reviewed a non-final interlocutory order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to CompelDeposition QuestionsIndustrial InjuryCerebellar HemorrhageWidowerGuardian ad LitemDiscovery Rules
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2013

Conroy v. Incorporated Village

The plaintiffs, former lifeguards, initiated an action against their employer, the defendant municipality, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 203-c due to the surreptitious installation of a video recording device in their changing room. Additionally, they asserted common-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The defendant subsequently sought to amend its answer to include affirmative defenses, specifically invoking the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law and noncompliance with notice of claim statutes (CPLR 9801 and General Municipal Law § 50-e). The court partially granted the defendant's motion, allowing the Workers’ Compensation Law defense to be asserted only against the intentional infliction of emotional harm claim. However, the court denied the application of this defense to the negligence claim, noting that Labor Law § 203-c provides cumulative remedies. Furthermore, the court denied the defendant's attempt to assert a defense based on defective notices of claim, deeming the plaintiffs' notices sufficient.

Labor LawVideo SurveillanceEmployer LiabilityEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendNotice of ClaimMunicipal LawCivil Procedure
References
23
Case No. VNO 0438915
Regular
Oct 23, 2008

Applicant vs. University of Southern California

This case concerns an applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying injury claims against the University of Southern California (USC). The applicant alleged a physical altercation with his supervisor, Mr. Pickering, during a meeting on September 20, 2001, which he claims caused various injuries. However, the WCJ found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony and failure to report the incident promptly. The WCJ relied on testimony from witnesses who stated Mr. Pickering merely touched the applicant's shoulders and noted the applicant's history of prior injuries and medical issues not fully disclosed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiological Safety Specialistspecific injuryanimositycredibility issuesshoulder touchingprior injurieshypertension
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,189 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