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. ADJ8260810
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

DANIEL STRYZINSKI vs. NEW YORK JETS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG INSURANCE, ATLANTA FALCONS, PITTSBURGH STEELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that California lacks jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. The ALJ found that the applicant's participation in only 21 out of 275 professional football games played in California did not establish a sufficient connection to the state for due process purposes. The majority opinion relied on the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* case, holding that California's interest was not substantial enough to assert jurisdiction given the applicant's lack of residency and hiring in the state. A dissenting opinion argued that California has a legitimate interest in compensating workers injured within its borders and that the applicant's connection was more than "de minimis," thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

StryzinskiProfessional AthleteCumulative TraumaJurisdictionDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Legitimate and Substantial InterestDe MinimisExtraterritorial ProvisionsLabor Code section 3600.5
References
2
Case No. ADJ8750277
Regular
Jun 26, 2013

RUTH SHAW vs. PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUTTER HEALTH

This case concerns a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim. The defendant objected to the initial venue in Anaheim, arguing it was improper as the applicant resided in Santa Cruz County and the injury occurred there. The Appeals Board found that both Felton (applicant's residence) and Santa Cruz (injury location) are within Santa Cruz County, which lacks a local Appeals Board office. Therefore, venue was properly changed to the Salinas district office, which is the nearest to the applicant's residence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.5(c)Venue VerificationApplicant's ResidenceLocation of InjuryNearest Appeals Board OfficeSalinasSanta Cruz County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1988

Osborn v. Planning Board of the Town of Colonie

Petitioners Betsy J. Osborn and Daniel L. Orne sought commercial site plan approval to use a portion of their Albany County home as a professional office for Osborn, a certified social worker, in an A-l residential zone. The Town of Colonie Planning Board initially denied their application, stating it was not a permitted use. After a CPLR article 78 proceeding compelled a decision, the Board formally denied the application, arguing the proposed office was not 'customarily incident and accessory' to residential use. The Supreme Court annulled the Board's decision and ordered approval, finding the proposed use qualified as an 'accessory use' under the Town's zoning code. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, holding that Osborn's professional office, which utilized less than 20% of the residence, maintained the residential character, and provided off-street parking, was clearly an accessory use, satisfying all ordinance requirements.

Zoning LawAccessory UseHome OccupationProfessional OfficeResidential ZoneCPLR Article 78Site Plan ApprovalAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
5
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. ADJ1323942
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

JANN WASHINGTON vs. DAVIS COMPANIES, FIREMAN'S FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the applicant's medical mileage reimbursement. The Board amended the prior award to allow reimbursement for travel between the applicant's Nevada residence and her California treating physician. The employer failed to prove that equally effective treatment was available closer to the applicant's residence, thus their objection to the extended mileage was denied. The specific amount of reimbursement is to be determined by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved for dispute resolution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryUpper ExtremitiesMedical TreatmentMedical MileageReconsiderationResidenceGeographic AreaTreating PhysicianEmployer Burden
References
1
Case No. ADJ8171056
Regular

JUAN ARANA vs. JOHN FREE, dba BELLA CASA

This case concerns a dispute over the proper venue for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant initially chose Oakland as the venue, as it was his attorney's principal place of business. After the employer objected, the judge changed venue to Santa Rosa. The applicant appealed, arguing Oakland is closer to his residence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the venue change, and returned the case to the trial level to determine the correct venue based on proximity to the applicant's residence or injury location.

Petition for RemovalOrder Changing VenueLabor Code section 5501.5venue objectionapplicant's residenceinjury locationnearest appeals board officeWCJDecision After Removalrescind
References
0
Case No. ADJ8017582
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

RONALD BRENT ALEXANDER vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, BERKLEY SPECIALTY; PITTSBURG STEELERS; ARIZONA CARDINALS; CAROLINA PANTHERS

This case involves a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim filed by a former professional football player. The applicant initially selected the Santa Ana district office based on his attorney's principal place of business. However, the defendant insurance carrier timely objected to this venue, arguing that pursuant to Labor Code section 5501.5(c), venue must be in the county of the applicant's residence or last injurious exposure if an objection is raised. As the applicant does not reside in California, the Board granted the petition for removal and remanded the case to determine the county of last exposure to establish proper venue.

Petition for RemovalVenue TransferLabor Code Section 5501.5Principal Place of BusinessObjection to VenueLast Injurious ExposureWCAB Rule 10410Applicant's ResidenceIndustrial InjuryProfessional Football Player
References
0
Case No. ADJ8759396
Regular
Feb 27, 2015

Jose Diaz vs. Timber Works Construction, Berkshire Hathaway

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jose Diaz seeking reconsideration of a prior order regarding his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The primary issue is whether the MPN's physician accessibility standards, which are tied to the "workplace" or residence, are met. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous order, and remanded the case, finding the MPN may be defective if it doesn't comply with physician access standards relative to the applicant's residence, given the employer's failure to meet the "workplace" standard. The Board also noted that the applicant's inability to travel, while a factor, was not the deciding point in this decision to remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNWorkplaceResidencePhysician Access StandardsTitle 8 Section 9767.5Pain ManagementPhysical MedicineCannot Travel Exception
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 1986

152 West 58th Street Owners Corp. v. Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union

This case concerns a dispute over arbitration following the termination of an employee. The petitioner, the new owner of a co-op residence, fired an employee. The respondent, the employee's union, demanded arbitration based on an expired collective bargaining agreement with the previous owner. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner's application to stay arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the petitioner, as a distinct successor entity, was not bound by the terms of the expired agreement to which it was not a party. The court emphasized that arbitration is contractual and cannot be imposed without agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSuccessor EmployerContract ExpirationLabor LawUnion DisputeStay ArbitrationNew York LawAppellate ReviewPredecessor Employer
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,273 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