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. ADJ7275781
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

DAINA ROBERTSON vs. VETERINARY CENTERS OF AMERICA, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a WCJ's imposition of a 25% penalty for defendant's failure to include a 10% self-imposed penalty under Labor Code section 4650(d) when paying a previous award. The defendant argued no penalty was due as they disputed indemnity periods and paid within fourteen days of the award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the supplemental award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This action was taken because the record was unclear regarding whether the defendant's dispute over indemnity payments constituted a genuine dispute that would excuse the 10% increase under section 4650(d).

Labor Code section 4650(d)Supplemental Findings and Awardtemporary total disability indemnitypermanent disability indemnityindustrial injuryleft ankleregistered veterinary technicianAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)permanent and stationarysurgery
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. ADJ8706889
Regular
Feb 16, 2016

Rachel Olson vs. Watsonville Community Hospital, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming an award for industrial injury to the applicant's low back and left hip. However, they reversed the administrative law judge's finding regarding a 10% increase in indemnity benefits under Labor Code section 4650(d). This penalty was deemed inapplicable because a good faith dispute existed regarding liability for additional benefits, and the prior decision was not yet final due to the ongoing appeals process. The Board emphasized that section 4650(d) penalties only apply when liability is not disputed or after all appellate rights have been exhausted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Ordersindustrial injuryregistered nurselow back injuryleft hip injurypermanent disabilityfurther medical treatmentlumbar surgery
References
4
Case No. ADJ7486214
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

CYNTHIA JOHNSON vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA/UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO MEDICAL CENTER

This case involves a dispute over permanent disability indemnity payments for an applicant who sustained an industrial back injury. The defendant sought a decrease in payments under Labor Code section 4658(d) for offering the applicant work, but the Board found this section inapplicable due to changed circumstances and the purpose of return-to-work incentives. The Board also removed a 10% penalty for late payment under section 4650(d), acknowledging a good faith dispute over the indemnity rate. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original award but amended findings regarding the penalty and attorney's fees.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONADJ7486214INDUSTRIAL INJURYPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTLABOR CODE SECTION 4658LABOR CODE SECTION 4650(d)RETURN-TO-WORK INCENTIVESFINDINGS AND AWARD
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Mensch

Henry Mensch, the debtor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He failed to appear at his Section 524(d) discharge hearing due to a disabling stroke, leading to a legal question regarding the mandatory attendance requirement. The court reviewed relevant statutes and legislative history, as well as prior case law, to determine if a debtor could be excused from personal appearance. It concluded that a debtor with a valid, sufficient excuse, who does not intend to reaffirm any debts and is to be granted a discharge, is not required to attend the Section 524(d) hearing. The court ultimately granted Henry Mensch's discharge.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge HearingDebtor AppearanceSection 524(d)Statutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical ExcuseReaffirmation of DebtsBankruptcy Code
References
14
Case No. ADJ767870 (LAO 0816816) ADJ1415110 (VNO 0526399)
Regular
Mar 21, 2011

EVELYN PIERRE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; Legally Uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision, upholding the denial of a second penalty for unreasonably delayed permanent disability indemnity. The applicant sought two separate Labor Code section 5814 penalties, but the Board found the employer's failure to pay indemnity and the related section 4650(d) penalty constituted a single continuous act of non-payment, not separate and distinct acts as required by *Christian v. WCAB*. Additionally, the petition for reconsideration was denied for failing to include proof of service and notice of the applicant's right to independent counsel.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDENYING RECONSIDERATIONLab. Code§ 5814permanent disability indemnityLab. Code§ 4650(d)unreasonably delayedseparate and distinct actsattorney's fee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 5,476 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