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
Aug 27, 1993

McNeil v. Aguilos

Juanita McNeil, an English-speaking African-American pro se plaintiff, alleges discrimination by Filipina-American nurses at Bellevue Hospital, including supervisor Marie Aguilos, who she claims spoke Tagalog to isolate, harass, and impede her job performance. McNeil asserts these actions violate Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on procedural issues, while McNeil cross-moved for summary judgment on the substance of her claims. The court partially granted defendants' motion, dismissing certain Section 1981 claims and state law claims against Bellevue Hospital for procedural deficiencies, but allowed Title VII claims and some Section 1981 promotion-related claims to proceed. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was entirely denied due to the presence of genuine issues of material fact regarding her discrimination and retaliation allegations. The court also dismissed several other statutory claims made by the plaintiff as legally deficient.

Workplace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationLanguage DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se PlaintiffContinuing Violation DoctrineRetaliationConstructive Discharge
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Raymond & Whitcomb Co.

The United States, on behalf of the Postal Service, sued Raymond & Whitcomb Co. (R&W) for misusing non-profit mail rates, resulting in a $398,960.05 deficiency, bringing claims under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, unjust enrichment, and the False Claims Act. The court found that R&W, a for-profit entity, collaborated with non-profit institutions (Metropolitan Museum of Art and Smithsonian Institution) on travel programs, and its significant financial stake in these ventures made the mailings ineligible for non-profit rates. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the United States on the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act and unjust enrichment claims, ordering R&W to pay the deficiency. However, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the False Claims Act count, determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding R&W's knowledge of the falsity of the mailing statements—specifically, whether their actions constituted reckless disregard or mere negligence. The case will proceed to trial to resolve the scienter element of the False Claims Act claim, while the debt for the misused postage is established.

Mail fraudNon-profit mail rateFalse Claims ActFederal Debt Collection Procedure ActUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentCooperative mailingsPostal Service regulationsScienterReckless disregard
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Xerces Society (plaintiffs) sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency (defendant) and intervenor Bayer CropScience, challenging the EPA's registration of the insecticide spirotetramat. Plaintiffs alleged procedural and substantive deficiencies, primarily that the EPA failed to publish notice of applications, invite public comment, and publish registration decisions as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The court found the EPA had indeed committed serious procedural errors. Despite arguments from the EPA and Bayer against vacatur, the court decided to vacate the EPA's approvals of spirotetramat registrations and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with FIFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Environmental LawInsecticide RegulationFIFRAAPAAdministrative LawNotice and CommentAgency ActionVacaturRemandSpirotetramat
References
21
Case No. Dkt. # 1, 41
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Poole

Petitioner Frederick Walker filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2000 conviction for robbery and assault in Monroe County. He alleged improper show-up identification procedures and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court addressed four grounds: the suggestiveness of two show-up procedures, insufficient evidence for attempted robbery, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court denied the claim regarding the second show-up on the merits, found the claims concerning the first show-up and evidentiary sufficiency to be procedurally defaulted, and dismissed the ineffective assistance claims for lack of deficient performance or prejudice. Consequently, Walker's request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied and his petitions dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselShow-up IdentificationDue ProcessRobberyAssaultAttempted RobberyProcedural DefaultExhaustion of State RemediesState Conviction Challenge
References
44
Case No. ADJ16511542
Regular
Apr 25, 2023

ZALANA GRAHAM-BRYANT vs. WKS FROSTY CORPORATION, ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Zalana Graham-Bryant's Petition for Removal. The Board rescinded the WCJ's Order Compelling Applicant's Deposition due to procedural deficiencies. These deficiencies included the WCJ's failure to articulate the basis for the order and the defendant's insufficient efforts to meet and confer before seeking compulsion. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionWCAB Rule 10390Meet and ConferMootnessIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceWCJ OpinionLabor Code Section 5313Rescinded Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ8379348
Regular
May 04, 2015

GLEN DAVIS vs. HARBOR AMERICA, dba MR HANDYMAN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CMS, for ULLICO CASUALTY CO., in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied its Petition for Removal. The defendant improperly sought reconsideration of a non-final order setting the matter for trial, and attached excessive exhibits in violation of procedural rules. While applicant's counsel also had procedural deficiencies, these did not impact the outcome. The WCAB adopted the judge's report and its own reasoning in reaching these decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting for TrialRule 10842Permanent DisabilityQMELabor Code section 4061(i)DORAdmonishment
References
0
Case No. ADJ9640872
Regular
Mar 21, 2017

ESPERENZA LOPEZ VARGAS vs. ELVIRA SANDOVAL FLC, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. The Board clarified that petitions for reconsideration can only be filed against final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not considered final. Additionally, the petition itself was deemed deficient for failing to state specific grounds or cite the record, violating procedural requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalSubstantive rightThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsLabor CodeAppeals Board Rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ4305848 (VNO 0500451) ADJ1421355 (VNO 0500448) ADJ3686141 (LAO 0853683) ADJ1772068 (LAO 0853682)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

ROSA MACIAS vs. GLENRIDGE CENTER, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed and not from a final order. The Board also initiated removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to assess sanctions against the lien claimant for failing to appear at trial and filing a procedurally deficient petition. Sanctions are warranted due to the lien claimant's failure to comply with procedural obligations and filing a frivolous petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of IntentionCompromise and ReleaseBoard Rule 10562Untimely Filing
References
10
Case No. ADJ9922433
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

PAUL BIXBY vs. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on alleged bias. The applicant's petition, though unverified and procedurally deficient, was treated as a disqualification request. The WCJ acknowledged inappropriate behavior and recused himself from the case, rendering the applicant's requested relief moot. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal as moot, while cautioning the applicant about future procedural compliance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ disqualificationOrder taking matter off calendarOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces Tecumbiasmootnessrecusalprocedural requirementsunverified petition
References
2
Case No. ADJ7030286, ADJ7222855
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

DEBORAH STANFIELD HALL vs. OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant attempted to disqualify the judge after a trial where witnesses testified, claiming the judge was disrespectful and showed favoritism. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, finding it untimely because it was filed after the swearing of the first witness. Additionally, the petition lacked the required affidavit supporting the disqualification grounds and did not specify any grounds under Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and dismissed it.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCJ RadosPetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10452affidavit or declarationpenalty of perjuryswearing of the first witnessindustrial injuriescustomer service clerk
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,743 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