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. 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. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Ruppert & Egelhofer

This case involves an appeal by the Brewery Workers Local Unions from a modification by the Appellate Division, First Department, which confirmed an arbitrator's award against them. The arbitrator had found the unions engaged in an illegal slowdown, violating their collective bargaining agreement, and issued an injunction to stop it. The unions challenged the arbitrator's authority to issue injunctive relief, citing Civil Practice Act § 876-a, and also raised procedural issues regarding conditions precedent to arbitration and sufficiency of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, ruling that parties can voluntarily confer injunctive powers to arbitrators, thus harmonizing the policies of arbitration and the Civil Practice Act. The court also dismissed the unions' procedural arguments, finding no failure to comply with arbitration prerequisites and sufficient evidence of a slowdown.

ArbitrationInjunctionLabor DisputeCollective BargainingSlowdownUnionEmployerAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1976

Claim of Leary v. Ward Baking Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's heart attack and subsequent compensation claim. The claimant initially appealed a referee's decision that denied his claim due to the accident not arising out of employment and being untimely filed. The Board reversed the referee on these specific issues and restored the case. The employer and carrier appealed, attempting to raise a notice requirement issue under section 18 of the Workers' Compensation Law, an issue not previously particularized before the Board. The court affirmed the decision, holding that the issue was not preserved for appellate review as it was not raised before the Board in the initial application for review.

Workers' Compensation LawProcedural LawNotice RequirementsTimeliness of ClaimAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationReferee DecisionBoard ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ8489417, ADJ8004557, ADJ8004568
Regular
Jun 30, 2015

ROCIO LUMBRANO vs. VOORTMANS EGG RANCH, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Rocío Lumbrano against Voortmans Egg Ranch and Imperium Insurance Company. The Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration on procedural grounds. The Board also initiated removal proceedings on its own motion and issued a notice of intention to sanction the applicant and/or her representative for engaging in frivolous litigation.

Rocio LumbranoVoortmans Egg RanchImperium Insurance CompanyADJ8489417ADJ8004557ADJ8004568Pomona District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionGranting Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ10563858
Regular
Jun 15, 2018

DARREN ANDERSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would warrant this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, explained that the order at issue only addressed procedural or evidentiary issues, not substantive rights or liabilities. Consequently, both petitions were denied as procedurally improper.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ7392875
Regular
Mar 27, 2015

PARGAT TOOR vs. YELLOW CAB, YORK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pargat Toor's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. The WCAB clarified that a petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a "final" order, which determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. The WCJ's decision in this case addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, thus not meeting the criteria for a final order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProceduralEvidentiaryRemoval
References
4
Case No. ADJ12649033
Regular
Feb 05, 2020

BARBARA JUAREZ vs. ANTHONY PITROWSKI, M.D.; NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANYT, adjusted by ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC

The Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because the underlying decision was not a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessitating this extraordinary remedy. Reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy should a final adverse decision eventually issue. Therefore, the Board found the petition to be procedurally improper and declined to grant the requested relief.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary Decisions
References
6
Case No. ADJ1528830 (AHM 0103528)
Regular
Jan 03, 2012

LAWRENCE BERG vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of a small balance for services rendered. The Board also issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the lien claimant and its representative for attaching previously filed documents to the petition, violating procedural rules. This action suggests the Board found the petition's arguments and attachments to be without merit and potentially delaying. The lien claimant has 15 days to show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings Award and OrdersCompensable Industrial InjuryBack InjuryNeck InjuryLower Extremity InjuryPsyche InjuryLabor Code § 5813
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,618 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