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. ADJ3953416
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

CLENNON MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order vacating a trial date. The Board also denied the defendant's petition to remove the applicant's non-attorney representative, Danny Boyd, from appearing, despite Boyd's history of abusive conduct. However, the Board issued a stern warning to Boyd that future misconduct will result in proceedings to remove his privilege to represent parties. The Board noted Boyd's potential violation of paralegal regulations and advised him to ensure compliance.

WCABPetition for RemovalHearing RepresentativeLabor Code Section 4907Cease and Desist OrderAbusive ConductNon-attorney RepresentativeSB 899Labor Code Section 5814Medical Mileage
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. ADJ9829793
Regular
Feb 28, 2020

JOHN SILVA vs. ARS INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves multiple petitions for reconsideration following an administrative law judge's decision on applicant John Silva's workers' compensation claim. The applicant's petition was dismissed as untimely filed. The defendant's petition was denied on its merits. The lien claimant, representing the applicant's former attorneys, had its petition granted to defer the issue of attorney's fees and related liens. The original decision was otherwise affirmed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingTollingLabor CodeShipleyDue ProcessLien ClaimantAttorney's Fees
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1987

Perna Carting Corp. v. Private Sanitation Union

The petitioner appealed an order that granted their application to stay arbitration only partially, specifically concerning disputes arising after December 1, 1984. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the respondent Union had never represented the majority of the bargaining unit, thereby invalidating their collective bargaining agreements. However, the court unanimously affirmed the prior decision, finding this argument without merit. It emphasized the presumption of continuing validity for such agreements and distinguished the petitioner's cited case law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner's evidence was insufficient to prove the Union represented only a minority of workers.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationUnion RepresentationContract ValidityPresumption of ValidityLabor LawAppellate DecisionSupreme CourtNew York
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. New York City Department of Transportation

The claimant, who sustained work-related injuries on December 20, 2011, retained Joel Fredericson as a licensed representative. Fredericson initially received a $2,450 fee in 2012. After further proceedings and an award of $202,689.44 to the claimant, Fredericson applied for an additional fee of $28,000 for 61 hours of work. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) subsequently awarded Fredericson $10,700. Fredericson appealed this to the Workers’ Compensation Board, requesting an increase to $16,500. The Board, however, reduced his fee to $450, citing an insufficient and inaccurate fee application (form OC-400.1) with significant discrepancies compared to his earlier submission. This court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion in approving counsel fees and upholding the reduction due to the severe deficiencies in Fredericson's fee application.

Fee DisputeAttorney FeesRepresentative FeesWorkers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionFee ApplicationForm OC-400.1Counsel FeesAppellate ReviewSchedule Loss of Use
References
3
Case No. ADJ7096210
Regular
Apr 11, 2011

ROBERTO GONZALEZ vs. JERRY'S FAMOUS DELI, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, which contained false factual assertions regarding a prior conference. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,500 each against Hearing Representative Lance Garrett and Attorney Carl Feldman for their bad-faith actions. The Board also ordered Attorney Feldman to identify the representative who appeared at the January 26, 2011 conference.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder To Suspend ProceedingCompel Medical ExaminationPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Hearing RepresentativeSanctionsFrivolous PetitionBad Faith Actions
References
1
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Faello v. Federal Express

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that deemed his application for review untimely. The claimant initially sought compensation for a work-related injury, claiming assault by a security officer. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the incident non-compensable as it was not an assault. Claimant subsequently applied for Board review but failed to serve the self-insured employer, instead serving only its claims manager. The Board panel denied the application, citing a violation of 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a), which mandates service on all parties in interest. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s denial, concluding that service upon the employer’s representative was insufficient for the self-insured employer, who clearly held a manifest interest in the proceedings.

Timely FilingApplication for ReviewService RequirementsParties in InterestSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Panel DecisionCompensable Injury DenialAssault ClaimProcedural Due Process
References
1
Case No. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. AHM 107719, AHM 106525, AHM 106165, AHM 106205, AHM106504, AHM 106473
Regular
Oct 19, 2007

MARIA RODRIGUEZ, MARTHA GARCIA, EVELIA MONTES, MARIA RAMIREZ, LIDIA GODOY, MARIA RAMOS vs. MOTEL 6, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied petitions for reconsideration filed by applicants represented *pro se*, finding the petitions procedurally defective due to lack of original signatures, improper verification, and failure to state all material evidence. Furthermore, the applicants were represented by counsel at the time of filing, and their *pro se* filings were unauthorized. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicants lacked credibility and failed to prove industrial cumulative trauma injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPropria PersonaConsolidated CasesCumulative TraumaCredibility DeterminationWCJ FindingsSubstitution of AttorneyVerified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,692 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