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

Gabarczyk v. BD. OF ED. OF SCH. D. OF POUGHKEEPSIE

Plaintiff Marion T. Gabarczyk filed an action against the Board of Education of the City School District of Poughkeepsie and the Poughkeepsie Public School Teachers Association, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and a violation of fair representation under the LMRA. Gabarczyk, a teacher who retired in 1985 at age 61, was denied a retirement incentive offered under a collective bargaining agreement to teachers aged 55 with 15 or more years of service, despite having previously withdrawn an application for a similar incentive in 1981. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the incentive plan was protected by ADEA's Section 4(f)(2) exemption for bona fide employee benefit plans and that the claim was time-barred. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to hold the case in abeyance but found the claim timely, then, citing Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, ruled that the retirement incentive constituted a bona fide employee benefit plan and was not a subterfuge for age discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing both the age discrimination claim and the related fair representation claim against the union.

Age DiscriminationRetirement BenefitsADEALabor Management Relations ActCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsFair RepresentationBona Fide Employee Benefit Plan
References
17
Case No. ADJ17550375; ADJ17550386
Regular
Jul 29, 2025

JOHN RICHARD SEDANO vs. LIVE ACTION GENERAL ENGINEERING INC.; NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a 'Findings of Fact, Award & Order' (F&A) issued on March 24, 2025, by a WCJ, and issued a Notice of Intent to impose sanctions. The WCJ had found that the defendant did not provide a bona fide offer of modified duty to the applicant, John Richard Sedano, and awarded temporary disability. Defendant argued that temporary disability should not have been awarded because an offer of work was made, the award lacked substantial medical evidence, and the WCJ failed to apply apportionment under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The WCAB affirmed the March 24, 2025 F&A and imposed sanctions of $750.00$ jointly and severally against the employer, insurer, administrator, and their attorneys for errors in the petition for reconsideration, including failure to cite the evidentiary record, improperly attaching documents, raising new issues, and citing non-existent legal authority. The Board also found the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting the modified work offer as a bar to temporary disability, and that the modified work offer was independently invalid due to a conflict in medical restrictions.

Temporary DisabilityModified DutyBona Fide OfferApportionmentLabor Code Sections 4663Labor Code Sections 4664SanctionsEquitable EstoppelMaximum Medical ImprovementWork Restrictions
References
10
Case No. VNO 523244
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

ANGIE JAUREGUI vs. MERCY SOUTHWEST HOSPITAL

This case involves an employer seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for an injured nurse. The employer argued their modified work offer should have reduced the permanent disability award, but the Board denied reconsideration. The Board determined the employer's work offer was not a bona fide modified work offer, and thus did not qualify for the statutory reduction.

Permanent and stationaryMedical-legal reportWork restrictionsModified workAlternative workLabor Code Section 4658(d)Permanent disability awardPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ9346293
Significant
Apr 13, 2020

Anthony Dennis, Applicant vs. State of California – Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Inmate Claims, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board holds that Administrative Director Rule 10133.54 is invalid because it exceeds the AD's statutory authority and that an employer must make a bona fide offer of work to avoid liability for a supplemental job displacement benefit voucher.

AD Rule 10133.54Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherexclusive jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCABAdministrative Directorstatutory authoritybona fide offerregular work
References
37
Case No. ADJ9346293
En Banc
Apr 13, 2020

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB holds that Administrative Director Rule 10133.54 is invalid as it exceeds the statutory authority granted to the Administrative Director and restricts the WCAB's exclusive power to adjudicate compensation claims. It also holds that an employer must provide a bona fide offer of work to avoid liability for a supplemental job displacement benefit voucher.

AD Rule 10133.54Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitWCAB exclusive jurisdictionadministrative director authoritybona fide work offerinmate laborstatutory authorityadjudicatory poweren banc decisionreconsideration
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mosello v. Ali, Inc. (In Re Mosello)

The Mosellos appealed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of their adversary proceeding, arguing that a mortgage release by Ameri-first Mortgage Corp. (the Bank) extinguished its statutory lien, making the Bank an unsecured creditor. The bankruptcy court determined that the Bank's judgment of foreclosure constituted a 'money judgment' under CPLR § 5203(a), thus giving its lien priority over the Mosellos' judicial lien. Additionally, the bankruptcy court found that a hypothetical bona fide purchaser would have had constructive notice of the foreclosure judgment despite an erroneous release document. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, agreeing that the judgment of foreclosure was a 'money judgment' and that the release did not vacate the financial aspect of the judgment. It also concluded that no hypothetical purchaser could have been bona fide due to the evident inconsistencies in the filed documents.

BankruptcyMortgage ForeclosureReal Property LienJudgment LienJudicial LienConstructive NoticeBona Fide PurchaserCPLR11 U.S.C. § 544(a)Adversary Proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Vlack v. Ternullo

The petitioners, maintenance workers and teachers at Fishkill Correctional Facility, were accused of violating Civil Service Law § 210 for refusing out-of-title emergency assignments during a correction officers' strike. A hearing officer sustained this determination, finding they condoned the job action and failed to prove a bona fide fear of personal injury or reprisals. However, the court annulled this determination, concluding it was not supported by substantial evidence. Testimony revealed picketing correction officers prevented petitioners from reporting to assignments through verbal harassment, abuse, and threats. This, coupled with inmates' support for strikers, created a genuine fear of physical violence, future reprisals, and lack of inmate protection. The court held that refusing assignments due to such a bona fide fear does not constitute a Taylor Law violation.

CPLR Article 78Civil Service LawTaylor LawPublic EmployeesStrikeOut-of-Title AssignmentsFear of InjuryReprisalsSubstantial EvidenceAnnulled Determination
References
4
Case No. ADJ9346293
Significant
Jan 13, 2020

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Intention to find Administrative Director Rule 10133.54 invalid, asserting it oversteps the Administrative Director's authority and infringes upon the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over supplemental job displacement benefits (SJDB). The Board also intends to hold that an employer must make a bona fide offer of work to avoid liability for an SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherAdministrative DirectorAD Rule 10133.54Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCABexclusive jurisdictionstatutory authoritybona fide offerregular work
References
33
Case No. ADJ9346293
En Banc
Jan 13, 2020

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to hold that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 10133.54 is invalid. The WCAB reasoned that the rule exceeds the AD's statutory authority and improperly restricts the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over supplemental job displacement benefits (SJDB). The board also intends to affirm its prior decision that an employer must make a bona fide offer of work to an injured employee to be exempt from providing an SJDB voucher.

AD Rule 10133.54Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitBona Fide OfferExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative DirectorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInmate LaborerStatutory AuthorityEn Banc DecisionReconsideration
References
31
Case No. ADJ9346293
Regular
Jul 03, 2018

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and overturned a prior decision finding the applicant, an inmate, ineligible for Supplemental Job Displacement Benefits (SJDB). The Board determined that while the applicant's appeal of the Administrative Director's presumed denial was untimely under specific regulations, the Board retains exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate SJDB eligibility. They found the employer's offer of modified work was not bona fide as the applicant was released from prison, thus the statutory exception to SJDB did not apply. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to SJDB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBAdministrative DirectorRule 10133.54untimely appealdue processexclusive jurisdictioninmate laborervocational rehabilitation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 574 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