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

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. ADJ10456118
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

RANDI QUINTELL vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing her workers' compensation case for lack of prosecution, arguing she was homeless and did not receive notice. While the Board dismissed her petition for reconsideration as the order was not final, it granted removal of the case. The Board found that the applicant would suffer prejudice if the dismissal stood without addressing her lack of notice claim due to homelessness. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Dismissing CaseLack of ProsecutionIn Pro PerActual NoticeHomelessnessWithdrawal of CounselProof of Service
References
7
Case No. ADJ7172643; ADJ7172641
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

JUSTIN MILLER vs. PF CHANGS CHINA BISTRO, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant whose workers' compensation claims were dismissed by the WCJ for lack of activity and prosecution. The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing due process violations and non-compliance with dismissal procedures. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the applicant's objections vague and lacking specific reasons for the lack of prosecution despite ample opportunity. A dissenting opinion argued that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion as the applicant had indicated an intention to prosecute the claim.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Order Dismissing Applicationswithout prejudicePetition for Dismissallack of activity and prosecutionNotice of Intent to Dismiss Applicationsobjections overruleddue process rights violatedCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10582
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munno v. Town of Orangetown

Plaintiff Ennio Munno, a police officer, initiated this federal action against the Town of Orangetown and various officials, alleging wrongful suspension without pay. Munno claimed violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, asserting both property and liberty interests, and also brought a state law claim for malicious prosecution against Kevin Nulty, the chief of police. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, granted the defendants' motion. The decision concluded that Munno was afforded adequate due process prior to and during his suspension, and that he failed to establish the "stigma-plus" standard required for a liberty interest violation due to lack of defamation publication or termination of employment. Consequently, with the federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentPolice MisconductSuspensionMotion to DismissMalicious ProsecutionStigma-PlusProperty InterestLiberty InterestFederal Civil Procedure
References
33
Case No. ADJ7807379
Regular
Oct 27, 2014

ANDREA BLAKE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ had already timely vacated the original order of dismissal for lack of prosecution. The WCJ's action, though miscaptioned as a report and recommendation, effectively rescinded the dismissal within the 15-day timeframe allowed by regulation. This occurred after the applicant argued their case should not have been dismissed without prejudice, claiming their attorney never received notice of the initial dismissal. Consequently, the WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot, recognizing the WCJ's prior correction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDismissal for Lack of ProsecutionPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Vacating DismissalMoot PetitionTimely ObjectionRescinded OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJTitle 8 CCR Sect. 10859
References
7
Case No. ADJ8283873
Regular
Jun 07, 2016

DANIEL CRUZ vs. BROWN SHOE COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed in error, mistakenly addressing an order that did not exist. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the Administrative Law Judge's order dismissing the defendant's own petition to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The dismissal of the defendant's petition was appropriate and the Board's actions are affirmed.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing PetitionLack of ProsecutionRule 10582Application for AdjudicationPetition for Order Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationQME
References
0
Case No. MON 330286
Regular
Aug 24, 2007

, Applicant, JESUS MARTINEZ vs. WOODLAND HILLS CONTRY CLUB, EMPLOYER'S DIRECT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order dismissing an applicant's claim for lack of prosecution. The applicant's attorney failed to respond to notices of intent to dismiss and did not provide reasons for reconsideration beyond requesting the dismissal be vacated. While the dismissal for lack of prosecution was affirmed, a dissenting commissioner believed removal should be granted regarding unpaid deposition fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicant's attorneyOrder of DismissalLack of prosecutionAppeals Board Rule 10582Industrial injuryFatigueLabor Code section 5710Deposition feesPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ7588271
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

ADOLFO ALCEDA vs. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal as it pertained to a final order, not an interlocutory matter. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision to rescind a dismissal for lack of prosecution. This rescission was granted because the applicant was not properly served with the dismissal notice due to an incorrect address in the EAMS system. The WCAB found that the applicant's objection to the dismissal, citing delayed doctor's reports due to retirement, constituted good cause.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Rescinding DismissalLack of ProsecutionVoid ab initioGood CauseUntimelyPetition to VacateDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedInterlocutory Orders
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 16,624 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