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. 06-CV-0116
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Brown

The petitioner, Hassan Nelson, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to vacate his state court conviction for armed robbery. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney's failure to request a remedy for lost exculpatory evidence (eyewitness notes) and the improper admission of a prejudicial arrest photograph. The court found counsel's inaction regarding the Rosario violation unreasonable and prejudicial, undermining the prosecution's weak, eyewitness-dependent case. Additionally, the admission of an irrelevant and highly prejudicial 1993 mug shot, which led jurors to infer a prior criminal record, violated Nelson's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the court GRANTED Nelson's petition, VACATED his conviction, and ordered his release or a new trial within thirty days.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselRosario ViolationEyewitness IdentificationPrejudicial EvidenceMug Shot AdmissibilityDue ProcessFair TrialState Court ConvictionFederal Habeas Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1990

People v. Singh

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of rape in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The appellate court found several erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Specifically, the court erred in admitting expert testimony on post-traumatic stress syndrome to prove the occurrence of rape, allowing testimony concerning prior uncharged sexual abuse outside the indictment period, admitting a prejudicial letter from the defendant, and permitting extensive cross-examination on pornographic videotapes. Due to the cumulative and prejudicial impact of these errors, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Child sexual abusePost-traumatic stress syndromeExpert testimonyEvidentiary errorsPrior uncharged crimesPornographic videotapeHarmless errorNew trialRape in the third degreeEndangering welfare of a child
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State of New York Office of Mental Health & New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n

Judge Mugglin dissents from the majority's decision, which concluded that the arbitrator committed misconduct by excluding pertinent evidence, specifically respondent Taras Neznanyj’s convictions, leading to an irrational factual conclusion. The dissenting judge argues that prejudicial arbitral misconduct was not a basis urged by the petitioner for vacating the award, and an arbitrator only exceeds their power if the award violates public policy, is irrational, or exceeds a specific limitation. The judge contends that the arbitrator acted within their broad powers by choosing not to consider the criminal convictions, as they were not the basis for the original charges, and instead conducted a de novo review, hearing testimony from multiple witnesses. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that arbitrators are not legally required to give collateral estoppel effect to criminal convictions, thus the failure to admit certificates of conviction, when underlying evidence was heard, does not constitute prejudicial misconduct or render the award irrational.

ArbitrationArbitrator MisconductCollateral EstoppelCPLR 7511Vacating Arbitration AwardDe Novo ReviewEvidence ExclusionCriminal ConvictionsAppellate DissentScope of Arbitrator's Power
References
6
Case No. ADJ693685 (SAC 0341153)
Regular
May 11, 2016

Nicole Miller vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves Nicole Miller's petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), alleging stonewalling and prejudicial behavior. The Appeals Board dismissed her petition as untimely because it was filed more than ten days after the hearing notice. Furthermore, the Board noted that this was a successive petition, raising similar issues to a prior one that was also denied. The Board admonished the applicant for failing to attend the scheduled hearing.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJuntimelysuccessive petitionLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil ProcedureRules of Practice and Procedureaffidavitdeclaration under penalty of perjuryNotice of Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ6794293
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

SHARON HIRONYMOUS vs. CENTRAL ANESTHESIA SERVICE, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order allowing a replacement QME panel. The Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and ruled the applicant was not entitled to a replacement QME. This decision was based on the applicant's failure to object to the QME's conduct during the examination itself, instead waiting until after reviewing the QME's report. Allowing a replacement panel under these circumstances was deemed prejudicial to the defendant.

QMEreplacement panelPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalindustrial injurycarpal tunnel syndromeAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical Evaluator Complaint FormTitle 8 California Code of Regulationsinterlocutory procedural order
References
16
Case No. ADJ351684 (LAO 0887175)
Regular
May 03, 2011

JOHNNY STEWART vs. PRAXAIR, INC./OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY; As Administered By BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was not final. The Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the parties had already participated in the AME/QME process, citing the applicant's failure to attend multiple scheduled appointments. Therefore, the WCJ's order compelling further AME/QME participation was premature and prejudicial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPraxair Inc.Old Republic Insurance CompanyBroadsplireJohnny StewartAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4062.2Findings of Fact and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. SRO 0118643
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

USANAMOORE vs. K A. COOPER, D.D.S.; AMERICAN JFACTURERS' MUTUAL

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not from a final order. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ's interlocutory rulings regarding Dr. Brant's services were prejudicial due to a lack of an evidentiary record and a proper due process hearing. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine the proper medical-legal procedures and whether Dr. Brant's evaluation was appropriately obtained.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJAMEMedical-Legal ProceduresUrinary IncontinenceEvidentiary HearingDue ProcessInterlocutory Rulings
References
10
Case No. ADJ9499148
Regular
Mar 28, 2018

GUMERCINDO ANGUIANO ARAUJO vs. YUKON PLASTERING, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's order disallowing lien claimant's lien. The original order dismissing the lien was based on insufficient evidence in the record, as no testimony was taken and no exhibits were formally admitted into evidence. The Board found the verification defect in the petition for reconsideration to be non-jurisdictional and not prejudicial to the defendant. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record and properly admit evidence.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStipulation Award OrderLabor Code section 5402Date of InjuryPretrial Conference StatementAdmitted EvidenceRecord of ProceedingsWCAB Rule 10750(a)Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation
References
3
Case No. ADJ7776671
Regular
Sep 11, 2013

LAWRENCE FERNANDEZ vs. LA CENTERS FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY c/o ILLINOIS MIDWEST

The applicant sought removal to rescind an order continuing the case for trial, arguing prejudicial error in not allowing further discovery on non-orthopedic claims. The Appeals Board denied the petition because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ explicitly reserved the issue of good cause for further discovery to the trial judge, making reconsideration an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10848WCJDiscoveryNon-orthopedic claimsPsychiatric QMEInternal Medicine QMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceTrialSubstantial Prejudice
References
2
Case No. ADJ11179850
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

WAYNE ESP vs. CAMBRON ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a defendant's Petition for Removal of an administrative order setting a trial date. The defendant argued the order would cause irreparable harm, but failed to demonstrate how presenting an intoxication defense at trial would be prejudicial. The WCAB found that any issues regarding a qualified medical evaluator could be addressed by the judge at trial, thus no extraordinary remedy of removal was warranted. The matter will proceed to trial as scheduled.

Petition for RemovalIndustrial CausationAffirmative DefenseIntoxicationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEToxicologySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMinute Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 71 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