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

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. ADJ7711093
Regular
Nov 10, 2014

Fernando Sosa vs. Source One Staffing, CIGA by its Servicing Facility Patriot Risk Services, For Ullico, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified. The Board also granted removal on its own motion due to the lien claimant's repeated failure to appear at lien conferences and file proper objections. This conduct, along with filing an invalid petition, suggests potential bad faith and warrants a Commissioner's Conference to determine if sanctions should be imposed. The lien claim was ultimately dismissed by the WCJ for non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando SosaSource One StaffingCIGAUllicoPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantCalifornia Physician NetworkLLCDenise Mejia
References
2
Case No. Docket No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Rubet v. Commissioner of Social Security

Maria Rubet, claiming disability due to a nervous condition since October 1993, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Following a remand and a subsequent hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again found Rubet not disabled, a determination adopted by the Commissioner. Rubet failed to respond to the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and a court order. The Court, after reviewing the record and adopting the Commissioner's analysis, found substantial evidence, including medical evaluations, to support the ALJ's finding that Rubet was not disabled. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Social SecuritySSI BenefitsDisability ClaimAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvaluationResidual Functional CapacityMental ImpairmentAppealsJudicial ReviewCommissioner Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Tammy Rice sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability benefits. The District Court considered the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff had severe impairments of mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and mild degenerative joint disease of the knees but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform light work with restrictions, concluding she was not disabled. The Court found the Commissioner's decision supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(c)Lumbar Spine
References
28
Case No. ADJ6551691
Regular
Oct 05, 2010

LOUIS SPEIGHT vs. VULCAN MATERIALS CO., Permissibly Self-Insured, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order to potentially impose sanctions on four attorneys from Stockwell, Harris, Woolverton & Muehl and their firm. The attorneys responded by requesting reinstatement of a previous order and a hearing. The WCAB dismissed their request as an improperly filed petition for reconsideration or removal. A Commissioner's Conference is scheduled for the attorneys to appear and address the sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Granting RemovalRescinding OrderCommissioner's ConferenceAttorneys' FeesLiabilityAppeals Board Rules
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ6436701; ADJ6436674
Regular
Dec 27, 2010

ALFONSO SOLORIO vs. AJ CARVALHO AND SONS, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN DIEGO

Applicant sought removal to rescind an order taking the case off-calendar for further discovery after a mandatory settlement conference. The Appeals Board denied removal, agreeing with the WCJ that further record development was warranted due to an Agreed Medical Evaluator's report lacking clarity regarding permanent disability ratings under different guidelines. The majority found no prejudice to the applicant in allowing this development. Commissioner Caplane dissented, arguing that discovery should not be reopened post-settlement conference without a proper showing of deficiency, especially before trial.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)AMA GuidesAlmaraz v. Environmental Recovery ServicesGuzman v. Milpitas Unified School Districtsubstantial evidenceabuse of discretionDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
3
Case No. ADJ1243572 (OAK 0342959)
Regular
Oct 30, 2013

MARIA ESTEBAN vs. WELLS FARGO BANK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Wells Fargo's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar. The Board found that the applicant's stated strategic decision to pursue further discovery after the mandatory settlement conference violated Labor Code section 5502(d)(3), which closes discovery at that point. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for a new mandatory settlement conference, with discovery to close as of February 4, 2013. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing removal was an extraordinary remedy not warranted here.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureVocational EvidenceDue DiligenceRescinded OrderPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorsTotal DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Door Specialties, Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor

The petitioner challenged the Commissioner's decision regarding the applicability of Labor Law § 220, which mandates prevailing wages, to small public projects. The petitioner argued that the procedural provisions of the statute suggested an exclusion for such projects. However, the Commissioner properly rejected this argument, a decision affirmed by the court. The court found no unequivocal indication in the statute to exclude small, unbid projects from prevailing wage requirements. It emphasized the overriding purpose of Labor Law § 220 to protect laborers and mechanics, irrespective of project size, and noted that the failure of public agencies to provide wage rate schedules does not absolve contractors of their prevailing wage obligations.

Labor LawPrevailing WagePublic ProjectsSmall ProjectsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentWorker ProtectionContractor ObligationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Decision
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,617 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