Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8336291

Regular

Feb 11, 2015

AIDA RAMOS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration in this case. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, concluding that the employer unreasonably neglected to furnish medical treatment to the applicant. This unreasonable neglect stemmed from the employer misdirecting an authorization for medical treatment by faxing it to the wrong number, resulting in a significant delay in the applicant receiving necessary orthopedic reevaluation. The Board emphasized that any consequences of such delays will be borne by the employer, not the injured employee, citing Labor Code § 4616.3(b).

Medical Provider NetworkMPNauthorizationfax numbermisdirectedunreasonable neglectfurnish medical treatmentdelayinjured employeeLabor Code § 4616.3(b)

References

Case No. ADJ8986943

Regular

Jul 08, 2014

EDGARD PARRALES vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory one concerning the selection of a Qualified Medical Evaluator. The Board also denied the implied Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the decision to proceed. The underlying dispute centered on the timeliness of the defendant's objection to a treating physician's report, which the judge determined was timely based on evidence of misdirected faxes. Ultimately, the Board adopted the judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the reconsideration and denying removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903Qualified Medical EvaluatorPanel QME

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Boland v. State of New York

Claimant's children suffered severe abuse from their stepmother, which was reported to the State-wide Central Register (SCR) but erroneously misdirected, leading to a critical delay and the death of one child. The claimant sued the State for negligence in operating the SCR hotline. The court found that the State voluntarily assumed a duty to protect the children through statute, establishing a special relationship and negating the need for direct contact and reliance. Consequently, both the State's motion for summary judgment and the claimant's cross-motion were denied, remanding the case for trial to determine proximate cause.

Child abuseChild maltreatmentNegligenceGross negligenceGovernmental immunitySpecial relationship doctrineMinisterial actProximate causeSummary judgmentState-wide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Tobin v. Barry

Plaintiffs, members of IBEW Local 501, initiated a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its Vice President J.J. Barry, Local 1249, several employer-contractors (Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc., L.K. Com-stock & Co., and Yonkers-Comstock Joint Venture), and their bargaining representative, the Northeastern Line Contractors Chapter (NLCC). The core of the dispute revolved around the IBEW's transfer of work assignment jurisdiction over a Metro North project from Local 501 to Local 1249 within Westchester County. Plaintiffs alleged breaches of the IBEW constitution, violations of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and Section 101(a)(5) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), and breaches of duty of fair representation and contracts by the employer-contractors. The court granted NLCC's motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim against it, but denied other defendants' motions for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust intraunion remedies was excused due to union misdirection, and that their claims were timely filed under the applicable statutes of limitations.

Labor DisputeUnion JurisdictionBreach of Union ConstitutionLMRA Section 301LMRDA Section 101(a)(5)Exhaustion of Internal Union RemediesStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining Agreement

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

AIDA RAMOS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Medical Provider NetworkMPNauthorizationfax numbermisdirectedunreasonable neglectfurnish medical treatmentdelayinjured employeeLabor Code § 4616.3(b)

EDGARD PARRALES vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

Boland v. State of New York

Tobin v. Barry