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

Diaz v. Michigan Logistics Inc.

Plaintiffs (Johanna Diaz, et al.) sued Michigan Logistics Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries, Northeast Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries (collectively, "Diligent"), and Parts Authority Inc. for alleged violations of the FLSA and NYLL, claiming misclassification as independent contractors and denial of minimum wage and overtime. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, citing owner-operator agreements with arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers and that Parts Authority, a nonsignatory, could not compel arbitration. The court, presided by Judge Wexler, granted the defendants' motion, finding that even if the FAA did not apply, New York arbitration law favored arbitration and that Parts Authority could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel. Consequently, the Opt-in Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was stayed pending arbitration.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawArbitrationIndependent Contractor ClassificationWage and Hour ClaimsOvertime CompensationClass Action WaiverCollective Action WaiverFederal Arbitration ActEquitable Estoppel
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Lebron

This case involves an appeal concerning the permanent neglect of a child, Jason, placed in foster care in 1982 due to his parents' eviction and drug addiction. The Family Court found permanent neglect but dismissed the petitions, ruling the petitioner agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship. The appellate court affirmed the finding of permanent neglect, agreeing that the parents failed to plan for Jason's future or maintain regular contact. However, the court reversed the Family Court's finding on diligent efforts, concluding that the petitioner agency had, in fact, met its burden of proving diligent efforts despite the parents' chronic drug addiction and lack of cooperation. The court emphasized that an agency is not a guarantor of an uncooperative parent's success.

Permanent NeglectChild WelfareFoster CareParental RightsDiligent EffortsDrug AddictionRehabilitation ProgramsFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawParental Responsibility
References
9
Case No. CR-007805-25BX
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

People v. Jefferson M.Q.

The case addresses whether the 2025 amendments to Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defining 'due diligence' for discovery, apply to a certificate of compliance filed before the amendments' effective date. The defendant, charged with driving while intoxicated, moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument due to the prosecution's failure to provide Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) attachments as ordered by the court. The court determined that the 2025 amendments are procedural and remedial, thus applying to pending criminal actions regardless of when the certificate of compliance was filed. Applying the 2025 due diligence standard, the court found the People failed to exercise due diligence by making perfunctory efforts, missing statutory deadlines, delaying in requesting ordered material, and failing to explain or correct the lapse. Consequently, the court deemed the People's certificate of compliance invalid and their statement of readiness illusory. As the People exceeded their allotted speedy trial time (92 chargeable days against a 90-day limit), the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument was granted.

Discovery ComplianceDue DiligenceCertificate of ComplianceSpeedy TrialStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of StatutesCriminal Procedure LawIAB AttachmentsMisdemeanor ChargesProsecutorial Misconduct
References
30
Case No. ADJ8766821
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

PARAMJIT KAINTH vs. KEVIN'S PAINTING AND CONSTRUCTION, a partnership, KEVIN SINGH aka KULDIP SINGH, SEE SINGH, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves defendants Kevin's Painting and Construction and Kevin Singh seeking reconsideration of a prior dismissal of their petition. The Board dismissed the current petition as an impermissible successive filing. Previously, their initial petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 13 days late, and they failed to diligently order transcripts needed for their appeal. Even if not successive, the current petition would be denied on its merits for the same reasons of untimeliness and lack of diligence.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTranscript request delayDiligenceLabor Code § 5903California Code of Regulations § 10859Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund
References
1
Case No. ADJ3390481, ADJ4560133
Regular
Mar 11, 2019

GILDARDO PATINO vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Arrowood Indemnity Company

This case concerns the applicant's workers' compensation claims and the defendants' failure to depose a key medical expert before his death. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendants' petitions for removal and denied their petitions for reconsideration. The WCAB found that the defendants did not demonstrate due diligence in scheduling the expert's deposition after the WCJ granted further discovery. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence.

WCABGildardo PatinoApplicantIndustrial InjuryPsycheGroinInternal SystemUrological SystemTeethExtremities
References
0
Case No. ADJ10203862
Regular
Dec 08, 2016

EARNEST YBARRA vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

Defendant Big 5 Corporation sought removal from a WCJ's order continuing trial to allow the applicant to supplement the medical record. The defendant argued this continuance was due to applicant's counsel's lack of diligence and violated their due process rights. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and that the issue of attorney diligence could be addressed during attorney fee determination. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalMinute Orderpanel qualified medical examinerPQMEmedical recordsLabor Code section 5502due processReport and Recommendationcontinued trial
References
2
Case No. ADJ2519091 (LAO 0824930) ADJ4160066 (LAO 0824931) ADJ188382 (LAO 0828971)
Regular
Aug 18, 1941

MARIA MARXUACH vs. WESTIN BONAVENTURE HOTEL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in this case, upholding the judge's decision. Discovery closed by operation of law on September 12, 2007, and the applicant's attorneys failed to demonstrate due diligence in listing crucial medical reports as exhibits prior to this closure. Despite numerous continuances and attempts to amend the exhibit list, discovery was never formally reopened. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the applicant did not establish why the exhibits could not have been presented with reasonable diligence before discovery closed.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePre-trial conference statementdiscovery closureadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationreopen discoverydue diligenceexhibition listWCJ reportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ9549383
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

JUANA ZELEDON DE TREMINIO vs. ESPOSTOS FINE FOODS INC. dba BOX LUNCH CO.

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's orders to reopen discovery and take the case off calendar, arguing the applicant lacked due diligence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's minute orders, and returned the case for trial without further discovery. The Board found the WCJ erred by taking the case off calendar and reopening discovery before trial, as there was no established record of deficient medical reports to justify such actions. The question of due diligence and substantial evidence should be determined based on admitted evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersReopening DiscoveryOff CalendarDue DiligencePrejudicialIrreparably HarmfulMedical Provider Network (MPN)Continuity of Care
References
2
Case No. ADJ1439326
Regular
Feb 03, 2014

BENEDICTO DORDINES vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition was subject to dismissal because it was not verified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). Furthermore, the WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, which concluded the Defendant failed to demonstrate due diligence in completing discovery. This lack of diligence was the basis for the judge's decision to set the case for trial, which the WCAB found did not warrant removal. Both defense and applicant's attorneys were admonished for failing to include their State Bar numbers.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalDENYunverifiedWCAB Rule 10843(b)State Bar numberWCAB Rule 10498interlocutory ordersubstantial prejudiceirrefutable harm
References
0
Case No. ADJ10591383
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

RUSSELL MITCHELL (Deceased); JEANNETE MITCHELL (Dependent) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release agreement for a dependency claim. The city argued the agreement was based on a mistake of fact regarding the date of injury, leading to an incorrect settlement amount. However, the Board found the city failed to demonstrate a valid legal basis for reconsideration, citing the parties' failure to exercise due diligence in drafting and reviewing the agreement. The Board concluded that the alleged mistake was unilateral and attributable to the defendant's lack of diligence.

Compromise and ReleaseDependency ClaimOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMistake of FactDate of Industrial InjuryDeath BenefitBurial ExpensesDisability Evaluation UnitOrder Suspending Action
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 274 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