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. ADJ9195822
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

BOBBY LEWIS vs. HENDRICKSON TRUCKING, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant, Labs for Physicians & Surgeons, seeking reconsideration of their lien's dismissal by operation of law. The claimant argued their filings were timely. However, the claimant and defendant later reached a stipulation to resolve the lien. The Appeals Board granted the claimant's request to withdraw their petition for reconsideration. The matter is now remanded to the trial level for review and action on the parties' stipulation.

Labor Code section 4903.05(c)Petition for ReconsiderationDismissal of lien by operation of lawNotice and Request for Allowance of LienSupplemental Lien FormSection 4903.05(c) Declarationfiling deadlineStipulationWCJAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ10067186
Regular
Jun 06, 2019

MICHAEL BEDIG vs. CANTRELL'S COMPUTER SALES AND SERVICE, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

This case concerns Michael Bedig's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined Bedig sustained injury to his neck and left upper extremity, resulting in 20% permanent disability and a specific weekly indemnity rate. Bedig sought to overturn this, arguing the ALJ erred by relying on stipulated earnings from a pre-trial conference statement, which he claimed were entered into by mistake and that his actual earning capacity should have been used. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that Bedig had repeatedly stipulated to his earnings and indemnity rate, failed to object to these stipulations at trial or subsequently, and did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to set aside a unilateral mistake.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityStipulationsPre-trial Conference StatementEarnings CapacityAverage Weekly WageIndemnity Rate
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirschhoffer v. Van Dyke

Plaintiff Lynne A. Kirschhoffer was injured in a car collision, and defendants were found solely responsible. A jury initially awarded Kirschhoffer $8,595,000 and her husband $1.8 million for derivative claims. The Supreme Court conditionally reduced these awards for future pain and suffering, impairment of earning ability, and the derivative claim, to which plaintiffs stipulated. Defendants appealed, challenging the preclusion of their medical expert's testimony regarding Kirschhoffer's pre-existing spondylolisthesis and the refusal to instruct the jury on pre-existing conditions, both of which the appellate court affirmed. The defendants' contention regarding the speculative nature of lost future earning capacity was also rejected. However, the appellate court further reduced the awards for future pain and suffering, impairment of earning ability, and derivative damages, finding the prior reductions still materially deviated from reasonable compensation, and ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless plaintiffs stipulate to the further reduced amounts.

Personal InjuryCar AccidentDamages ReductionJury AwardMedical Expert TestimonyPre-existing ConditionLost Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewPain and SufferingSpondylolisthesis
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Case No. ADJ4379045 (ANA 0389616)
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

FEDERICO MARTINEZ vs. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, INC.

Defendant Robertson's Ready Mix sought to reopen a stipulated award of 81% permanent disability for Federico Martinez based on a change in law regarding life pension calculations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed significantly beyond the statutory 20-day limit. However, the WCAB returned the petition to the trial level to be considered solely as a petition to reopen based on the alleged change in law. This decision allows the parties to address the legal change at the trial judge level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to ReopenPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityLife PensionLabor Code Section 4659(c)Baker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Untimely Filing
References
5
Case No. ADJ4345820 (MON 0346332)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

DONALD PARSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision awarding 100% permanent disability to an applicant. The Board found that the administrative law judge erred by admitting evidence and making findings on injuries to the applicant's neck, back, and upper extremities, as these issues were not properly raised and stipulated at the pre-trial conference or trial. This denied the defendant due process by precluding their opportunity to present evidence on these claims. The Board rescinded the original decision and returned the case for further proceedings, requiring the judge to clearly state the reasons for any new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryPsycheSleep DisorderInternal SystemNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. ADJ10135147
Regular
Jan 11, 2016

DEANNA BARNETTE vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a stipulated award, and returned the case to the trial level for further inquiry. The defendant sought to set aside the award, arguing mutual mistake of fact regarding credit for employer disability plan payments, which they claimed would lead to overpayment. The Board agreed that the stipulations' validity, specifically whether there was good cause to set them aside due to mistake, needs to be determined by the trial judge. This decision allows for an examination of the applicant's understanding and the factual basis of the original stipulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardMutual Mistake of FactPermanent Disability IndemnityEmployer's Disability PlanUnjust EnrichmentOverpaymentGood CauseSetting Aside StipulationsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
8
Case No. ADJ8603938
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

MACARIO IGLESIAS vs. ABE EL PRODUCE, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's exclusion of their exhibits. The exhibits were deemed untimely filed as they were received by the Board less than 20 days before trial, contrary to a pre-trial order. The Board confirmed that the relevant Appeals Board rule regarding filing dates had not been repealed and that the lien claimant failed to meet their burden of proof. A dissenting opinion argued the pre-trial order was potentially ambiguous and that the exhibits should have been admitted given timely service and no prejudice to the defendant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Judge (WCJ)ExhibitsTimely filedRepealed ruleRule 10392Pre-trial conference
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,918 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