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. ADJ2942075
Regular
Jul 30, 2010

GREGORY REES vs. CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the underlying order denying the PQME disqualification was procedural, not final. On its own motion, the Board granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition. The Board found the defendant's counsel acted in bad faith and frivolously by asserting ex parte communication violations where none existed under Labor Code section 4062.3(h), and thus intends to sanction counsel.

PQME disqualificationex parte communicationLabor Code section 5813frivolous bad faithAppeals Board Rule 10561removal on board motionfinal orderinterlocutory orderssignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
7
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592) ADJ1224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Feb 17, 2009

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA. COM and SYSMASTER CORPORATION, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order being challenged was procedural and not a final appealable order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The applicant's arguments regarding rescinded orders, discovery abuse, and due process were unaddressed as the procedural nature of the order precluded review. The Board cautioned the applicant against filing frivolous petitions, warning of potential sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderProcedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Substantive RightsDiscovery IssuesAbuse of Discovery
References
5
Case No. ADJ6849643
Regular
May 20, 2013

CHARLES MALINOWSKI vs. HSM ELECTRONIC PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., SPECIALTY RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order setting the case for trial and closing discovery, as such procedural orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion, finding the defendant's petition frivolous and indicative of bad faith tactics intended to delay proceedings. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction the defendant and its counsel jointly and severally, up to $1,500, for their improper procedural filing. The matter will proceed with trial pending the resolution of the sanctions issue.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSanctionBad FaithFrivolousLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 Section 10561Interlocutory OrderVocational Rehabilitation Expert
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City v. Department of Homeless Services

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) implemented a new Eligibility Procedure for Temporary Housing Assistance (THA) applicants. The Council of the City of New York (City Council) filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting DHS failed to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). The court affirmed lower court rulings, determining that DHS's procedure constitutes a 'rule' under CAPA, requiring public notice and hearings. The court rejected DHS's arguments that the procedure involved sufficient discretion or fell under an exemption, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedure and its substantial impact on eligibility determinations. Consequently, the Eligibility Procedure is unenforceable until DHS adheres to CAPA's procedural mandates.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentHomeless ServicesTemporary Housing AssistanceNew York City CharterCAPASAPAAgency DiscretionProcedural Requirements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Spyhalsky v. Cross Construction

This case of first impression examines whether Workers' Compensation Law § 13 (a) mandates a workers’ compensation carrier to cover sperm extraction and intrauterine insemination for an injured worker who cannot procreate due to a causally related injury. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1995, leading to surgery and consequential retrograde ejaculation. When conservative treatments failed, his urologists recommended artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. The Workers’ Compensation Board authorized these procedures, ruling that the inability to naturally father a child constituted a compensable injury requiring treatment. The court affirmed this decision, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Law to meet its humanitarian objectives and asserting that coverage for restoring lost bodily functions extends to procreative capabilities.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Treatment CoverageRetrograde EjaculationIntrauterine InseminationProcreation RightsCompensable InjuryBodily Function LossStatutory InterpretationSperm ExtractionMedical Necessity
References
14
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. ADJ9125161
Regular
Dec 26, 2014

FAUSTINO SOLORIO vs. CHRISTOPHER WATKINS dba WATKINS SERVICES CONSTRUCTION LANDSCAPE, CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sustained an industrial injury. The defendant's Petition for Reconsideration was denied and sanctioned for failing to meet procedural requirements, including lacking specific record references and legal analysis. The Appeals Board found the petition skeletal, frivolous, and an attempt to retry the case. Ultimately, the defendants and their counsel were ordered to pay a $250.00 sanction for these deficiencies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityContinuing Medical TreatmentRemovalSanctionSkeletal PetitionFrivolous PetitionMaterial Deviation from Duties
References
0
Case No. ADJ8202286; ADJ8202308
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

BRADLEY WHEELER vs. COUTS HEATING & COOLING, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Appeals Board dismissed Zurich's unverified Petition for Removal due to procedural defects and its misrepresentation of the record. The Board also removed the cases to itself on its own motion and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on Zurich for frivolous actions. The Board directed the WCJ to hold a priority hearing to determine if Seabright should be joined as a party and to resolve issues regarding alternative dispute resolution provisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDismissedSanctionsLabor Code Section 3201.7Alternative Dispute ResolutionWCIRBSocial Security EarningsPetition for DismissalOff Calendar
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,739 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