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. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. ADJ9877506
Regular
Oct 30, 2017

MICHAEL WALLACE (Dec'd), ANGELA JOHNSON WALLACE (Wife) vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, reversing the dismissal of a death benefit claim. This action was taken to issue a notice of intent to impose sanctions and attorney's fees against the applicant's attorneys for alleged bad faith actions. The Board found their petition lacked specificity and cited multiple violations of procedural rules and potential misconduct regarding discovery. A hearing will be held to determine if sanctions are warranted against the named attorneys and their firm.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPetition to Dismissbad faith actionsfrivolous litigationattorney sanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Weber

The plaintiff, a marketing manager for Rushmore & Weber, Inc., was terminated after expressing his intent to exercise a stock option. He sued the company and its president, Peter B. Weber, for breach of his employment contract and intentional interference with his stock option agreement. The trial court dismissed the intentional interference claim, ruling that all agreements formed a single contract, precluding interference by a party to that contract. A jury found that the plaintiff was terminated for "good cause" as defined in his employment contract, citing poor performance and misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in dismissing the intentional interference claim and upholding the jury's verdict as supported by evidence.

Employment ContractStock Option AgreementBreach of ContractIntentional InterferenceGood Cause TerminationCorporate LawShareholder AgreementAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Belmar

Claimant, a school guard for the New York City Board of Education, was terminated after failing to disclose an arrest and conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred during nonworking hours, but the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that his conduct constituted misconduct directly related to his position and posed a safety risk to students, thus disqualifying him from benefits. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that misconduct affecting integrity, even if off-duty, bears a relationship to employment under Labor Law § 593 (4). The court also held that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities does not exempt an individual from a finding of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCriminal ConvictionSchool GuardWeapon PossessionOff-Duty ConductCertificate of ReliefCivil DisabilitiesBoard of EducationPersonnel Review
References
2
Case No. SRO 0137322
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

JONATHAN D. LOPEZ PACHECO (JONATHAN LOPEZ) vs. WEDGE ROOFING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and ruled that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct. The Board found that while there were safety policy deviations, the employer took reasonable steps and genuinely believed the aerial plank was safe, thus lacking the required intent for serious and willful misconduct. Therefore, the applicant's claim for increased benefits based on employer misconduct was denied.

Serious and willful misconductaerial plankrooferWedge RoofingInc.State Compensation Insurance Fundproximate causefindings and awardpetition for reconsiderationCalOSHA
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. ADJ8739181
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

JOHN JOAQUIN (deceased), JENNIFER JOAQUIN, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for ANNAMARIE JOAQUIN, MAKAHLAH LYNN JOAQUIN, IZABEL TRINITY JOAQUIN vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK

This case concerns a deceased worker's family seeking increased compensation due to alleged serious and willful misconduct by the employer, San Diego Unified School District. The WCAB affirmed the judge's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct, as the employer's actions were deemed a mistake in judgment rather than intentional disregard of danger. The Board also upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding a subsequent remedial measure taken by the employer. A dissenting opinion argued that the employer's decision to send the employee to a dangerous roadside repair location demonstrated reckless disregard for safety, warranting a finding of serious and willful misconduct.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mercer-Fraser Co.subsequent remedial measureEvidence Code section 1151roadside repairdangerous conditionreckless disregardJohns-Manville Sales Corp.Hawaiian Pineapple Co.
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,195 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