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
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. ADJ629563
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

CLAUDIA ANDRADE vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the trial judge's findings and returned the case for further proceedings due to a denial of due process. The trial judge decided issues not presented by the parties, preventing them from offering evidence or arguing their case. The Board found the trial judge's framing of the sole issue as "good cause to violate the MPN agreement" was insufficient and failed to resolve the lien claim's ultimate entitlement to recovery. The case will be returned to the trial level to properly frame all contested issues and allow parties to present evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNLien ClaimantDue ProcessFindings and OrdersReconsiderationExpedited HearingCompromise and ReleaseLien Trial
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaczor v. City of Buffalo

Walter Kaczor, a retired Buffalo Police Officer, sued the City of Buffalo and its officers for age discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, alleging he was not reinstated due to his age. A jury found the defendants willfully discriminated against Kaczor. Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional issues, and damages computation. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability and willfulness, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings, including direct evidence of age discrimination. The court also denied motions to dismiss Kaczor's ADEA and pendent state law claims, confirming jurisdiction despite complex interplays between federal and state filing requirements. Issues related to the excessiveness of damages were referred to a Magistrate for settlement negotiations.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)New York State Human Rights LawPost-Trial MotionsWillful DiscriminationJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Procedural RequirementsJurisdictional IssuesElection of RemediesDamagesEmotional Distress
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1998

Quispe v. Lemle & Wolff, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial on liability. The central issue on appeal was the trial court's refusal to admit a hospital triage report into evidence. The report contained conflicting accounts of how the plaintiff sustained injuries, specifically whether she fell from a fire escape or jumped from a window to escape a fire, both from a height of eight feet. The court found the report inadmissible under both the business entry exception to the hearsay rule and as an admission against interest. This was due to the defendants' failure to prove that the plaintiff was the direct source of the recorded information, as the plaintiff spoke only Spanish and the nurse relied on unidentified EMS workers and a hospital translator. Furthermore, the court noted that the cause of the injury was not pertinent to the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment, which further precluded its admission under the business records exception. The defendants' argument that the translator acted as the plaintiff's agent was also rejected as lacking factual support.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Entry ExceptionAdmission Against InterestHospital Triage ReportMedical Records AdmissibilityTranslation AccuracyInterpreter CompetencyCause of InjuryNew Trial MotionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ9141320
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

, JOSE LUIS MUNOZ DAVILA, vs. , LOS ANGELES DODGERS; SEDGWICK, FIREMAN'S FUND, ESIS,

This case concerns a defendant, ACE USA, seeking removal to bifurcate the trial on the issue of jurisdiction for a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim. ACE argued it lacked due process because it wasn't adequately notified that all issues would proceed to trial. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, finding ACE failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the administrative law judge deferring the bifurcation decision. Commissioner Lowe dissented, believing ACE would be prejudiced by proceeding to trial on unprepared issues due to insufficient notice.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardACE USAJurisdictionDue ProcessMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementBifurcationLabor Code section 3600.5Prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fedrau v. Porcelain Insulator Corp.

The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's negligence complaint, as there were issues of fact that should have been decided by a jury. Consequently, the judgment was reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial was granted. A dissenting opinion argued that no cause of action was established, asserting a lack of proof that the plant owner breached any duty owed to the plaintiff. The dissent further contended that the plaintiff, a skilled worker, exhibited contributory negligence by disregarding warnings about the roof's instability.

NegligenceContributory NegligenceForeseeabilityTrial Court ErrorJury QuestionsNew TrialAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyDuty to Warn
References
4
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Case No. ADJ1393892
Regular
Aug 16, 2011

JOSE NAVARRO vs. LOCKHEED

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration regarding an alleged March 12, 1990 injury, upholding the WCJ's finding that no industrial injury occurred. The Board granted removal on its own motion to address potential sanctions against applicant's counsel for citing medical records not present in the official record, which is a violation of WCAB rules and attorney ethics. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to impose $1,000 in sanctions jointly against the attorney and his firm, and awarded attorney's fees to the defendant. Other outstanding issues in the consolidated cases are returned to the trial level for further proceedings by the WCJ.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMisleading PetitionSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813WCAB RulesAttorney's DutyEvidence Outside Record
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Claim of Williams v. New York State Department of Transportation

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1988, initially received permanent partial disability benefits at a mild rate in May 1996. Dissatisfied with this assessment, the claimant appealed, presenting medical evidence suggesting a more severe disability. This led the Workers’ Compensation Board to restore the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record concerning the degree of disability post-May 6, 1996. Although two physicians testified, with one indicating a moderate disability and another a total disability, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ultimately awarded benefits at a moderate partial disability rate. Upon the claimant's subsequent appeal, the Board ruled that the claimant was precluded from raising the issue of their degree of disability, citing regulatory provisions. The appellate court found that the Board had abused its discretion, as the issue was explicitly remanded by the Board previously, and the claimant was still aggrieved by the WCLJ's award despite an increase in benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionProcedural ErrorMedical EvidenceDegree of DisabilityRemittalNew York LawAdministrative Appeal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 12,352 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