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. ADJ9440770 ADJ8897603
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

LEE WOOLEVER (Deceased); PENNY WOOLEVER; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case concerns a claim for workers' compensation death benefits by Penny Woolever, the ex-wife of deceased employee Lee Woolever. Ms. Woolever argued she was a total dependent despite their divorce due to ongoing financial support and a close relationship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that she was not a dependent, as their divorce was final and they never resumed cohabitation. The Board distinguished this case from precedent allowing dependency claims based on reconciliation. Consequently, the death benefit was awarded to the Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit.

Esophageal cancerDeath benefitsDependency claimLabor Code section 3502Reconciliation of marriageSpousal supportTotal dependentDivorce decreeWCJ ReportLloyd Corporation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2003

Beesmer v. Village of DeRuyter Fire Department

In 1975, the decedent, a volunteer firefighter, suffered a heart attack and continuously received workers' compensation benefits until his death in 2002. His claimant applied for death benefits, alleging a causal link between the 1975 injury and his death. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits after denying the employer's request for a second adjournment to depose treating physicians, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The court found substantial evidence supporting the causal relationship between the heart attack and death, noting that a work-related injury need not be the sole cause of death. Additionally, the court upheld the WCLJ's denial of the adjournment, as the employer failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not scheduling depositions or serving subpoenas during the initial adjournment period.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationshipHeart AttackCongestive Heart FailureAdjournment DenialTreating Physician DepositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionVolunteer Firefighter
References
5
Case No. ADJ3197408 (FRE 0226208)
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

Guadalupe Ayon (Deceased); Irena Ayon, Miguel Ayon, Erica Ayon, Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit vs. Cal Grain and Hay; Zenith Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for both the applicants and the defendant. The Board upheld the finding that the mother and sister were not dependents of the deceased worker, as they failed to prove a net financial benefit was provided to the household. Their argument for estate benefits under an unconstitutional statute was also rejected, with the Board noting that judicial decisions invalidating statutes apply retroactively. Consequently, the employer remains obligated to pay $125,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations for death without dependents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDependent death benefitLabor Code section 4706.5(a)Fatal injuryDependencyPartial dependentFinancial dependencyNet financial benefitEstate benefitsUnconstitutional statute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

Claim of Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning her husband's death benefits. In 1991, the decedent sustained a compensable lung injury, leading to permanent partial disability and continuous workers' compensation benefits until his death in September 2010. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that the death was causally related to his work-related illness, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The self-insured employer and its claims administrator appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing that a compensable illness need not be the sole cause of death, only a contributing factor. Evidence included the death certificate listing sepsis and respiratory failure, and a C-64 medical report from the decedent's long-term physician stating the death was directly or indirectly caused by the work-related illness.

death benefitscausal relationshipoccupational illnessrespiratory failuresepsispermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealmedical report evidencecontributing factor
References
4
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stevenson v. Yellow Roadway Corp.

A tractor trailer operator employed by Yellow Roadway Corporation crashed and suffered a massive stroke, dying two days later. His widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, which the employer attempted to controvert. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the employer failed to timely controvert the claim, thereby barring their defenses regarding causation. Relying on the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), the Board established a causally related death. The employer appealed, challenging the application of the presumption and the finding of a causally related death. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, upholding that the employer was precluded from raising defenses due to the untimely filing of the notice of controversy.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationPresumption of CompensabilityWorkers’ Compensation Law § 21Workers’ Compensation Law § 25Untimely ControversionStrokeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ2335090 (SFO 0510716)
Regular
Oct 07, 2010

YOLANDA SMITH vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding a deceased deputy sheriff's death to be industrially related due to a heart presumption under Labor Code section 3212.5. Despite the deceased being involved in a non-work-related car accident, the court found the heart presumption applicable, deeming his hypertension a contributing factor to his death. The defendants' arguments regarding the "going and coming rule" and lack of substantial evidence were rejected. The Board affirmed that the presumption, along with medical evidence of hypertensive heart disease hastening death, established the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment.

Labor Code 3212.5Heart PresumptionGoing and Coming RuleProximate CauseHypertensionEnd Organ DamageAnatomic EvidenceEnlarged HeartLeft Ventricular HypertrophySarcoidosis
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harvey v. Marlene Industries Corp.

The National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting Regional Director William K. Harvey, sought an injunction under NLRA Section 10(j) to prevent Marlene Industries Corporation from distributing proceeds from an asset sale. This was in anticipation of a final Board decision on unfair labor practice charges, which an Administrative Law Judge had found against Marlene. The long-standing labor dispute originated in 1970 with employee discharges and subsequent picketing. The court, however, denied the injunction, concluding that there was no demonstrated danger of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the court found that the core issues had been previously addressed and resolved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975, ruling that Marlene's actions in 1970 were not unlawful, and thus, extraordinary relief was unwarranted.

Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActAsset SaleRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSixth Circuit Court of AppealsBack Pay ClaimsIrreparable HarmSection 10(j)
References
5
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Kramer v. Ultra Blend Corp.

Decedent, a co-owner and employee of a vitamin blending company, suffered a fatal heart attack at work. His widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, attributing the death to work-related stress. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the heart attack was due to non-work-related risk factors. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that it is within the Board's discretion to resolve conflicts in expert medical testimony and that their decision was supported by substantial evidence.

workers' compensationdeath benefitsheart attackwork-related stresscausalitymedical expert testimonyWorkers' Compensation Boardsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewcoronary thrombosis
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,773 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