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. ADJ8693536
Regular
Dec 28, 2017

MARQUITA DONES vs. WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Marquita Dones' petition for reconsideration regarding an increase in permanent disability benefits. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found no objective medical evidence supported an increase in disability beyond the original 7% award. While applicant testified to increased pain, neither the Qualified Medical Evaluator nor the treating physician could establish an increase in impairment, as required by the AMA Guides. The Board also admonished applicant's attorney for filing a non-compliant document.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedPermanent DisabilityCumulative InjuryLeft ElbowLeft WristAwardPetition to ReopenNew and Further Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2010

Lopez-Dones v. 601 West Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, an apprentice electrician employed by Falcon Electrical Contracting Corp., sustained personal injuries when her ladder was struck by a dolly at a construction site in Kings County. She alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied her motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the order was reversed in part, granting the plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against 601 West Associates, LLC, Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., B.R. Fries & Associates, LLC, and B.R. Fries & Associates, Inc. Other appeals and cross-appeals were affirmed, and summary judgment was awarded to the BRF defendants dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against them.

Personal InjuryLabor Law §240(1)Labor Law §241(6)Labor Law §200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party ActionContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law Indemnification
References
13
Case No. ADJ7447702
Regular
Nov 04, 2018

RONALD PANTUS, Deceased vs. GET'ER DONE TRUCKING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a deceased truck driver whose dependent son was injured and incapacitated in the same accident. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of lifetime dependency benefits to the son. The Board found that Labor Code section 3501(a) does not require pre-existing incapacity but rather incapacity at the time of the parent's death-causing injury. The Board also emphasized the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws and rejected the defendant's attempt to introduce fault-based arguments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGet'Er Done TruckingState Compensation Insurance FundRonald PantusJacob Pantuslifetime dependency benefitsLabor Code section 3501(a)incapacitated from earningtraumatic brain injuryfindings award order
References
0
Case No. ADJ283022
Regular
Oct 06, 2008

DONALD LEWIS vs. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY EAST, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a July 21, 2008 decision. This was done to allow further study of the factual and legal issues, ensuring a complete understanding of the record for a just decision. All future communications regarding this case should be directed to the Appeals Board's Reconsideration unit, not local offices.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationGrantedDecision After ReconsiderationCalifornia Men's Colony EastState Compensation Insurance FundStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal Issues
References
0
Case No. ADJ2854178
Regular
Apr 27, 2010

DELITA RIGOLI-BETANCOURT vs. VONS, A SAFEWAY COMPANY

Defendant Vons sought reconsideration of a February 3, 2010 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition for reconsideration. This was done to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Pending the decision after reconsideration, all communications must be filed with the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners, not a local office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersPermissibly Self-InsuredVonsSafeway Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ3126264 (RIV 0065704) ADJ842531 (RIV 0065705)
Regular
May 25, 2010

VELMA L. LANKSTER vs. COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a joint petition for removal and ordered a change of venue for two cases to the Anaheim district office. This was done because a prior petition for venue change was not acted upon within the required timeframe, and the judge's subsequent order was untimely. Despite the procedural issue, the WCAB found good cause and consolidated the cases with other related matters in Anaheim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueAnaheim District OfficeConsolidationPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeEAMSTimelyJurisdictionGood Cause
References
0
Case No. ADJ10129038, ADJ7518514, ADJ7762269
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

RAMON NEVAREZ vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant UPS sought reconsideration of a decision deferring the issue of injury to the applicant's right forearm and shoulder. The Board dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought from a "final" order. Deferring an issue, as done in this case, does not determine substantive rights or liabilities, nor does it resolve a threshold issue. Therefore, the order deferring the injury issue was not a final decision, making the petition for reconsideration improper and subject to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical EvidenceBody Part InjuryLibery Mutual Insurance Company
References
4
Case No. ADJ6590798 ADJ6590824
Regular
Mar 25, 2013

ELEANOR CASTILLO vs. SENIOR HELPERS, ENDURANCE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This was done to allow further study of complex factual and legal issues. The Board also granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental response addressing new issues raised by the lien claimant in their Answer. All future filings in this case must now be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners, not to district offices or via electronic filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationSupplemental ResponseLien ClaimantReasonable ExpensesSanctionsAppeals Board Rule 10848Labor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
1
Case No. ADJ9076626
Regular
Jul 17, 2015

CIPRIANO NIETO ROJAS vs. METALS, U.S.A., INC.; ACE U.S.A., Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This was done to allow the Board further opportunity to study the factual and legal issues presented. All future filings related to the petition for reconsideration must be submitted directly to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners, not district offices or e-filed. This order ensures a thorough review for a just decision, and prohibits WCJs from acting on settlements while reconsideration is pending.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ9076626Metals U.S.A. Inc.Ace U.S.A.Gallagher Bassett Services Inc.Opinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baillis v. Fuchs

The court affirmed a judgment that permanently enjoined a defendant labor union and its members from picketing the plaintiffs’ businesses and interfering with their operations. The appellants' motion to resettle the judgment was denied. The court ruled that Section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act was inapplicable because the plaintiffs were conducting their business themselves, performing substantially all the work previously done by their former employees. This meant there was no "labor dispute" within the statutory definition, thereby entitling the plaintiffs to the injunction.

Labor DisputeInjunctionPicketingLabor UnionCivil Practice ActStatutory DefinitionBusiness InterferenceAffirmed JudgmentResettlement MotionAppellate Decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 33 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