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

Delcon Construction Corp. v. United States Department of Housing, & Urban Development

Deleon Construction Corporation (plaintiff) filed an action against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its Secretary, Mel Martinez (defendants), based on quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and conversion of trust funds. The defendants moved to join Russand, Inc., as a necessary party, arguing that Russand was a party to the underlying construction contract and Building Loan Agreement, which are central to Deleon's claims. The court found that Russand is a necessary party under Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because complete relief cannot be accorded among the existing parties without Russand's presence, and its absence could subject HUD to inconsistent obligations. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion and ordered Deleon to join Russand as a necessary party defendant within thirty days, or face dismissal of the action.

Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 19(a)(1)Necessary PartyJoinderQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentConversion of Trust FundsConstruction ContractMortgage InsuranceHUD
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1999

Hill v. Warner Bros.

This case involves an appeal affirming a lower court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a personal injury complaint. The plaintiff was deemed a "special employee" of defendant By Any Means Necessary Cinema (BAMN), despite concurrent employment with IDC Services, which barred his personal injury action under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court also found that other named defendants, including Spike Lee, were co-employees, precluding an action against them under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6). Furthermore, defendants Warner Brothers, Inc. and Forty Acres & A Mule Film Works were not involved in the film production, and Palace Fried Chicken was too distant to be a contributing factor. Finally, no evidence supported a finding of negligence against defendant John Catsimatides.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate AffirmationFilm IndustryPayroll ServicesNegligenceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. SFO 0490700
Regular
Mar 26, 2008

Mercedes Abarca vs. RITZ CARLTON HALF MOON BAY

The Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award to limit the payment for the interferential muscle stimulator (IMS) device and supplies. Initially, the Administrative Law Judge found the device necessary for the entire period claimed, but upon reviewing Dr. Wolfer's note, the Board limited coverage to November 19, 2005, to January 30, 2006. This amendment reflects that the IMS device was deemed necessary for the industrial injury only during this specific timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings & Awardinterferential muscle stimulator (IMS device)lien claimantRS Medicalself-procured medical expenseutilization reviewsubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationWCJ report and recommendation
References
0
Case No. VNO 513573
Regular
Apr 23, 2008

RICHARD FISCHINGER vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding no evidence that the defendant failed to provide necessary medical treatment for the applicant's admitted industrial lung injury. The WCAB amended the findings to state that the defendant rendered all necessary medical treatment and deferred determination of Dr. Weingarten's lien claim. The award for further medical treatment was removed, and the issue of self-procured treatment was also reversed due to lack of supporting evidence.

Ralphs Grocery CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesRichard Fischingerpermanent disabilitylung injuryhypertensiondiabetesself-procured medical treatmentWCJFindings and Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ10555511
Regular
Oct 03, 2018

MARIO GUDINO IBARRA vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, ruling that Truxtun Pharmacy failed to meet its burden of proof for reimbursement of its lien. The Board found that the pharmacy did not provide substantial medical evidence demonstrating the compound medications were reasonable and necessary under the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS). Specifically, the physician's report lacked necessary citations and the prescribed treatments were not recommended by the MTUS. Therefore, the lien claimant is entitled to no recovery on its lien.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAshley Furniture IndustriesHartford Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesMario Gudino IbarraTruxtun PharmacyMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleMTUSOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleOMFS
References
2
Case No. ADJ2919964 (LAO 0735981)
Regular
Sep 15, 2011

ALICIA SAUCEDO vs. TRI MARINE CANNING CO.; CIGA by its servicing facility, BROADSPIRE, for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal because a trial order setting a lien trial without allowing necessary discovery prejudiced the defendant and violated its due process rights. The defendant argued it had not had an adequate opportunity to investigate outstanding liens, some of which appeared to be new or misidentified. The Board rescinded the trial order, canceled the trial, and took the matter off calendar pending completion of discovery, finding this necessary to ensure fairness and facilitate potential settlement.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Granting PetitionDecision After RemovalCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGABroadspireSuperior NationalLiquidationDiscovery
References
0
Case No. ADJ10459640
Regular
Dec 01, 2019

Antonio Venegas vs. Baron HR Staffing, Kruse and Sons, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding an order that had taken the case off calendar. The applicant argued the removal order deprived him of due process, as joining additional parties was not necessary for trial. The Board found that while joining parties might be necessary, taking the case off calendar hindered the system's purpose of prompt benefit payment. The matter is returned to the trial level for placement back on calendar, with a status conference suggested if delays are needed for joinder.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalJoint and Several LiabilityGeneral and Special EmploymentDue ProcessExpedited HearingPriority ConferenceLabor Code Section 3602(d)Insurance Code Section 11663Off Calendar
References
8
Case No. ADJ8501522
Regular
Nov 19, 2014

AMADOR VILLAREAL vs. FRESH START BAKERIES, THE HARTFORD

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns an applicant injured as a maintenance technician whose employer challenges an award of transportation services for his children. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the record regarding this specific expense. While the initial administrative law judge found the transportation reasonable and necessary due to the applicant's inability to drive after his injury, the Board determined the applicant had not yet met his burden of proof that these services are medically necessary. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record on the medical necessity of child transportation services.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactMaintenance TechnicianIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryHead InjuryVision InjuryPsyche InjuryBrain Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ11446749; ADJ11446748
Regular
Apr 28, 2023

STEVEN CORSARO vs. MENTOR NETWORK, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a previous decision that found the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his right leg. The Board returned the case to the trial level due to an inadequate record, as the Workers' Compensation Judge failed to prepare necessary documentation and admit key evidence. Furthermore, the Board noted that medical evidence is required to establish causation for repetitive traumatic injuries, and lay testimony alone is insufficient for this determination. Therefore, further proceedings are necessary to develop both the factual and medical records before a new decision can be rendered.

AOE/COEReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJPQMELay testimonyMedical evidenceLabor Code § 5313Minutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ10933682
Regular
Dec 04, 2020

AMY LI vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Essential Interpreting Inc. (cost petitioner) concerning its claim for deposition preparation interpreting services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the cost petitioner failed to prove its services were reasonable and necessary under Labor Code section 5811. The defendant, Kaiser Permanente, had specifically stated in its deposition notice that it would provide the interpreter for both preparation and deposition time. Since the cost petitioner did not demonstrate why using an interpreter of its choosing was necessary over the one provided by the defendant, their claim for reimbursement was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5813deposition preparationinterpreting servicescost petitionerapplicantdefendantWCJ
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,159 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