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

Lachanski v. Schenectady County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning the validity of designating petitions for Conservative Party candidates in Schenectady County. Petitioners challenged the petitions, alleging "multiplicity of inconsistent candidacies" where candidates appeared on petitions in multiple election districts. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitioners' application, deeming invalid those petitions for candidates listed in multiple districts. The Appellate Court affirmed the finding that such a practice is injurious and that the respondents' excuses were insufficient. However, the Appellate Court modified the judgment, declaring valid the designating petitions for John De Georgio and Carl La Malfa, as they appeared on only one petition each.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConservative PartyCounty CommitteePrimary ElectionCandidate EligibilityMultiplicity of CandidaciesVoter MisleadingAppellate ReviewAffirmance
References
1
Case No. ADJ3953416
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

CLENNON MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order vacating a trial date. The Board also denied the defendant's petition to remove the applicant's non-attorney representative, Danny Boyd, from appearing, despite Boyd's history of abusive conduct. However, the Board issued a stern warning to Boyd that future misconduct will result in proceedings to remove his privilege to represent parties. The Board noted Boyd's potential violation of paralegal regulations and advised him to ensure compliance.

WCABPetition for RemovalHearing RepresentativeLabor Code Section 4907Cease and Desist OrderAbusive ConductNon-attorney RepresentativeSB 899Labor Code Section 5814Medical Mileage
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. S. Joseph Co. & Toufic Aris & Fils

The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment dismissing Joseph's petition to stay arbitration and granting Toufic's cross-petition to compel arbitration, concurrently vacating an earlier stay pending appeal. The dispute arose from an oral grain sale agreement between Joseph, a Minnesota seller, and Toufic, a buyer from France and Lebanon, where both parties exchanged telex confirmations that largely agreed but had minor differences, and crucially incorporated a North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) contract containing a broad arbitration clause enforceable in New York. The court determined that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, asserting that New York law governed the arbitration provision due to its significant contacts, irrespective of the performance location. The majority opinion found the arbitration agreement valid, with some justices viewing it as part of a valid sales contract under UCC 2-207(2)(b), while others deemed the arbitration clause separable. Justice Nunez dissented, arguing for a remand to ascertain the validity of the underlying sales agreement, highlighting telex discrepancies and the non-execution of a formal contract as crucial factors impacting the arbitration agreement's existence.

Arbitration AgreementContract FormationChoice of LawUniform Commercial CodeInternational TradeGrain SaleTelex ConfirmationNAEGA ContractMaterial AlterationSeparability Doctrine
References
9
Case No. ADJ8905655
Regular
Nov 09, 2015

JAN MELLEMA vs. CHEVRON, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Zurich's Petition for Reconsideration and denied its Petition for Removal. Zurich sought reconsideration of an order joining it as a defendant, but the Board found that reconsideration is only available for final orders, not interlocutory ones like party joinder. While Zurich's petition was timely, the Board denied removal because Zurich failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the joinder. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoinder of Party DefendantInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmDefective ServiceTimeliness
References
13
Case No. ADJ10561426 ADJ10561449
Regular
Jan 29, 2020

SANTOS HERNANDEZ vs. ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AIG for COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal, overturning a prior order that had denied joinder of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF). This decision was based on a procedural defect where the joinder petition was filed before substituted service was completed. However, since service was subsequently completed, the WCAB found it judicially economical to grant removal and join the UEBTF as a party defendant. The UEBTF is now ordered to be joined, and all parties must serve them with relevant case documents.

Petition for RemovalUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSubstituted ServiceJudicial EconomyRescinded OrderDirector of Industrial RelationsOfficial Address RecordApplication for Adjudication of ClaimSpecial Notice of LawsuitProof of Service
References
0
Case No. ADJ1497584 (SAC 0370207)
Regular
Jan 01, 2013

ERNEST SURITA vs. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by Mr. McKown. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because Mr. McKown was not an aggrieved party by the WCJ's order, as the applicant had already substituted and dismissed him as counsel. Furthermore, the order was not considered final as it did not determine Mr. McKown's entitlement to attorney's fees. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyFinal OrderSubstitution of AttorneysNotice of Dismissal of AttorneyAbsolute Right to DismissAttorney's Fee EntitlementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantive Right
References
4
Case No. VN0 0440027
Regular
Jan 15, 2008

GUADALUPE SANCHEZ ROJAS vs. MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERVICES, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that significantly reduced their lien amount. The Board dismissed the petition primarily because it was not properly verified and lacked a required proof of service on all adverse parties. Additionally, the lien claimant's representative lacked standing to file the petition due to failure to formally appear or substitute as attorney.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJMedical treatmentLien trialMissing exhibitsVerification defectProof of serviceSubstitution of attorneys
References
4
Case No. LBO 0297361
Regular
Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

The Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal challenging an order compelling the applicant's wife to attend a continued deposition. The pro se petition was dismissed as untimely and unverified, while the attorney's petition was dismissed because discovery orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding the wife waived her marital privilege by appearing and testifying, and cautioned parties about potential sanctions for their behavior.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition
References
12
Case No. ADJ9496892
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

JUNE JONES vs. CALIFORNIA SPECIAL PATROL, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of an Order Rescinding Submission, Order Vacating Finding and Order, and Order to Develop the Record dated June 27, 2025, arguing further record development was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition and denial if treated as a petition for removal. The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition but noted issues with notice of transmission to the parties. They dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the underlying order non-final, and denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding SubmissionFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Transmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemNotice of TransmissionFinal Order
References
8
Case No. ADJ3442701, ADJ1527396
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

STEVE FARACI vs. RIVERTON STEEL, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, SEDGWICK, CMS, AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration and denied a Petition for Removal. The Board found that the petition sought reconsideration of an interlocutory order, which is not a final decision subject to review. Additionally, the petition for removal was denied as untimely and for failure to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report, concluding that the order joining a party defendant was procedural and not a final determination of rights or liabilities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 17,236 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