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. ADJ7412016
Regular
May 10, 2011

DORIS CORTES vs. BANK OF THE WEST, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained bilateral wrist and elbow injuries but experienced no lost time from work. The applicant stipulated to zero permanent disability, though the WCJ ordered an Almaraz/Guzman assessment, which the defendant sought to rescind. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and will approve the stipulations unless the applicant objects within twenty days. The Board found the stipulations adequate based on the record and the applicant's continued employment.

WCABPetition for RemovalAlmaraz/Guzman assessmentStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disability ratingobjective findings of impairmentqualified medical evaluator (QME)American Medical Association Guidesmandatory settlement conference (MSC)rescinded order
References
2
Case No. ADJ1895769 (OAK 0305869)
Regular
Aug 24, 2016

CATHERINE BURNHAM vs. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, finding jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the cost of specialized prosthetic braces (IDEOs), which a prior judge erroneously sent for Independent Bill Review. The WCAB determined that Labor Code section 4603.6 did not apply as there was no billable service in the conventional sense. Following a Commissioners' Conference, the parties entered stipulations for the provision of the braces, payment of fees according to the CA fee schedule, and resolution of associated penalties. The WCAB approved these stipulations, resolving the parties' dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarJurisdictionLabor Code 4603.6Independent Bill ReviewIntrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal OrthosisIDEO bracesMedical Fee ScheduleLabor Code 4603.2
References
3
Case No. ADJ7277939
Regular
Jan 11, 2011

MISUK BRIANS vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the defendant sought removal after the judge took a mandatory settlement conference off calendar and demanded further responses. The Board granted removal, rescinding the judge's order and criticizing the procedural deviation from policy. The Board found the applicant's stipulations adequate despite the defendant's withdrawal of agreement. The Board will approve the stipulations unless either party objects in writing within twenty days.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceStipulations with Request for AwardOrder Taking MSC Off CalendarWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5502(a)Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.91(C)(3)Status ConferenceAdequacy
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. ADJ3550549 (LAO 0884192)
Regular
Sep 22, 2016

JACK DUPONT (Dec'd), ANYAWAN DUPONT (Widow) vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BROADSPIRE

This case involves a remand from the Court of Appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code Section 5801. Applicant's attorney and the defendant's attorney jointly stipulated to an award of $11,600.00 to resolve this issue. The WCAB approved this stipulation and returned the matter to the trial level.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardremandedstipulationapplicant's attorneydefendant's attorneyjoint lettertrial levelaward
References
0
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. ADJ3855987 (OAK 0344425)
Regular
Aug 22, 2012

FRANCIS CRUZ vs. UNIVERSITY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order allowing an Employment Development Department lien claim. The Board rescinded the original order, finding that the parties had reached a new stipulation based on a mutual mistake regarding the application of a time-off-work cap to the lien. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to approve the replacement stipulation or for the judge to re-issue the original order if the new stipulation is not approved. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing Lien ClaimEmployment Development DepartmentMutual Mistake of FactTTD CapCompromise and ReleaseStipulationWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. ADJ6422131
Regular
Oct 09, 2019

Teresa Hernandez vs. Fresno Unified School District

This case involved an applicant claiming industrial injury to multiple body parts, including the psyche, from her employment. The defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award, disputing the psychiatric injury finding and the reliance on a specific medical opinion. Ultimately, the parties entered into stipulations resolving all issues, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found adequate and approved. The Board rescinded the original award and issued a new award based on the approved stipulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentPsychiatric InjurySubstantial EvidenceCreditAttorneys' Fee
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,131 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