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. ADJ3872772 (VNO 0546594) ADJ310152 (MON 0351415)
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

HIRAN EDIRIWEERA (Deceased); DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. SRR, LLC; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Petitioners, alleged partial dependents of a deceased worker, sought to overturn a 2007 Compromise and Release agreement where the insurer paid death benefits to the State's Death Without Dependents Unit, asserting they received no notice. The Board dismissed their petition for reconsideration of the 2007 order due to untimeliness and failure to meet reopening criteria. However, the Board removed the separate, pending death benefit claim (ADJ3872772) to address the petitioners' potential claims for partial dependency, acknowledging prior notification of their existence to the insurer.

Partial dependentsDeath benefitsCompromise and Release AgreementPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseReopeningTimelinessNoticeOpportunity to objectIndustrial injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gabisch v. J. F. C. Rental Corp.

Martin C. Gabisch died from injuries sustained in a work-related accident on March 28, 1985. His parents, Martin J. Gabisch and his wife (referred to as Claimant Mother), filed a claim for compensation asserting dependency. Initially, a finding of dependence was made, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, concluding that the claimants were not wholly or partially dependent on the decedent. The claimants subsequently appealed this Board decision. The court reviewed the evidence, noting that the deceased contributed approximately $550 per month to the family income, while the claimant father earned about $3,000 per month. The court determined that the evidence presented did not establish that the claimants were dependent upon the decedent, as they needed to prove they were not independently self-supporting. Consequently, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Parental DependencyWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewFinancial SupportWork-Related AccidentDependency ClaimBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
1
Case No. ADJ6751913
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

EDWIN MORENO (DEC.), ADRIAN AND NELLY MORENO, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CERADYNE INC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves the denial of reconsideration for a petition filed by the parents of a deceased worker, Edwin Moreno. The parents claimed partial dependency on their son's income, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) upheld the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision that they failed to prove the required legal standard for dependency. Specifically, the parents could not quantify any monetary contributions their son made to their business or their support. The WCAB also noted a procedural issue with service of the petition but denied reconsideration on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath Without Dependents UnitPetition for ReconsiderationPartial DependentsDeath BenefitsIndustrial AccidentDependency ClaimSupportChevron USAInc. v. WCAB (Stecle)
References
1
Case No. ADJ7472371
Regular
Oct 19, 2016

GOLDEN DAVE DUBOISE (Deceased); DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT; PAMELA MEGAN DUBOISE, vs. BLACK ROAD AUTO & TOW; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Department of Industrial Relations' petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that Pamela Duboise was a partial dependent of the deceased employee, Golden Dave Duboise. This determination was based on evidence of past child support payments and cash gifts, establishing reliance for her maintenance. The Board distinguished this case from precedents where dependency was based solely on legal obligation without actual contributions.

Death Without Dependents UnitPamela Megan Duboisepartial dependentdeath benefitschild supportarrearageDivorce DecreeArkansas state courtWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ9803664
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

JUAN GONZALEZ (Deceased), DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DISABILITY & RETIREMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded a judge's order that stayed proceedings pending the outcome of a probate case. The WCAB determined that probate court findings have limited relevance to determining workers' compensation death benefits and that the WCAB has sole jurisdiction over dependency issues. By staying the proceedings, the judge's order caused significant prejudice to the defendant, SCIF, by hindering discovery and resolution of a potential partial dependency claim. The matter was reset for further proceedings, with parties urged to attempt informal settlement.

Death benefitsDependencyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceProbate proceedingsLabor CodeCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundDeath Without Dependents Unit
References
1
Case No. ADJ12616197
Regular
Jan 12, 2022

VANESSA FATZER (Deceased) KATRINA S. HAGEN, Director of Department of Industrial Relations, administrator for Death Without Dependents Unit JOEL STAPLETON III vs. KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior finding, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. The Board found that the original decision, which determined Mr. Stapleton was a partial dependent of the deceased, was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the WCJ's credibility assessment of Mr. Stapleton and his father was insufficient as their testimony was solely from deposition transcripts and they were not called as witnesses at trial. The Board emphasized that deposition testimony alone is insufficient to establish credibility for a dependency determination.

Death Without Dependents UnitPartial DependentLabor Code Section 4706.5Dependency DeterminationCredibility of WitnessesDeposition TestimonySubstantial EvidenceFurther ProceedingsReconsiderationRescission
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1986

Claim of Giglia v. Berger Industries

Decedent Erminio Giglia suffered a work-related myocardial infarction on July 20, 1983, and died on August 20, 1983. His mother, the claimant, filed a claim for death benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (4-a), asserting partial dependency. The Workers’ Compensation Board found her partially dependent and awarded benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing that the claimant’s income, combined with free rent from her other sons, was sufficient to meet her needs without the decedent's contributions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample substantial evidence to support the finding of dependency, considering the claimant's age, lack of education, inability to speak English, physical ailments, and reliance on the decedent's weekly financial contributions.

Workers' CompensationDependency ClaimDeath BenefitsWork-Related InjuryMyocardial InfarctionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewFinancial DependencyContributionStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1997

Reed v. State

Claimant Rollo J. Reed, an ironworker, was injured at a construction site in Binghamton, New York, when scaffolding gave way, causing him to fall. He and his spouse commenced a claim against the State, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Court of Claims granted their motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant's injuries resulted from an elevation-related hazard against which the State failed to provide proper protection. The court also rejected the State's defense under the recalcitrant worker doctrine, finding no evidence that the claimant refused to use available safety devices or alternative safer access.

Labor Law Section 240 (1)Scaffolding AccidentConstruction InjuryAbsolute LiabilityElevation HazardSummary Judgment MotionRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineIronworkerBridge RehabilitationAppellate Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrington v. Fernet

Mark Harrington, an employee of M&A Construction, sustained an injury in September 2006 while working on a residential development for Charlew Construction Company, Inc., discharging a nail into his right leg with a pneumatic framing gun. Harrington and his spouse subsequently sued Charlew, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Charlew's motion for summary judgment was partially granted, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but denied concerning Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, with the indemnification claim deemed premature. The core dispute revolves around whether a hazardous condition, specifically an unbackfilled foundation creating a muddy slope, was present at the worksite, which Harrington claimed caused his accident. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to a factual dispute regarding the hazardous condition, a decision affirmed by the appellate court.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryNail Gun InjuryLabor Law ViolationsSafe Place to WorkHazardous ConditionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommon-Law NegligenceContribution
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,625 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