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. ADJ9559658, ADJ9841710
Regular
Jul 21, 2017

SANDRA MORALES SESENA vs. RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision, finding the applicant entitled to a second supplemental job displacement voucher. This is because the applicant sustained two distinct industrial injuries causing permanent partial disability, and the plain language of Labor Code section 4658.7 mandates a voucher for each qualifying injury. The Board rejected the employer's argument that injuries occurring concurrently or having the same stationary date precluded separate vouchers. The applicant is entitled to a separate voucher for each of her injuries to her lumbar spine and hypertension.

Supplemental job displacement voucherLabor Code section 4658.7Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of FactStipulated Awardindustrial injurypermanent partial disabilityseparate vouchersplain meaninglegislative intent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1956

Gluckstern v. Gluckstern

In this separation case, the Special Term initially granted a decree of separation to the plaintiff wife and awarded her custody of their six-year-old son. The appellate court found it difficult to assess the parents' qualifications solely from the record. It suggested that a thorough investigation by a trained social worker, available through the newly established Special Term, Part XII (Family Part), could help resolve doubts regarding custody. Consequently, the amended judgment of February 17, 1956, was modified, remitting the custody decision back to the trial justice for utilization of these services. Additionally, a motion to amend support and maintenance provisions was also remitted, pending the final custody decision.

SeparationChild CustodyRemittalJudicial ReviewSocial Worker InvestigationFamily LawAppellate DivisionSpecial TermParental FitnessSupport and Maintenance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
Case No. ADJ4312477 (GRO 0033744) ADJ2550699 (GRO 0033745) ADJ1243304 (GRO 0033746) ADJ541032 (GRO 0033747) ADJ595387 (GRO 0033748) ADJ1104781 (GRO 0033749)
Regular
Feb 10, 2009

CATHERINE PORTUGAL vs. MIKASA, INC.; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed a WCJ's decision finding the defendant liable for a Labor Code section 5814 penalty due to unreasonable delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Voucher. The Board clarified that the voucher constitutes "compensation" under section 5814 and the penalty should be 25% of the amount ultimately paid from the voucher. The Board also corrected a clerical error regarding the voucher's maximum value to $8,000.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherLabor Code section 5814Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgePenalty AssessmentPermanent DisabilityRehabilitationAttorney's FeeLabor Code section 4658.5
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castella v. Long

This case involves an employee of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) who was terminated for allegedly submitting falsified subsistence vouchers. The Plaintiff challenged this separation, alleging constitutional due process violations under the Fifth Amendment, violations of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) and (6)), and seeking judicial review of the agency's decision. The District Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the constitutional tort claims, citing sovereign immunity and the Bush v. Lucas doctrine, which bars Bivens actions for federal employees in employment contexts. The Privacy Act claims were also dismissed as an attempt to re-litigate the discharge decision. The Court ultimately found the agency's decision to terminate the Plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence, within agency discretion, and that proper procedures were followed.

Employment LawFederal Employee TerminationDue ProcessSovereign ImmunityPrivacy ActAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFalsification of Documents
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angello v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Labor Ready, Inc. and its subsidiary Labor Ready Northeast, Inc., temporary employment firms in western New York, paid their 18,000 workers daily. Employees could choose payment by check or a cash voucher, redeemable at a Labor Ready cash dispensing machine (CDM) for a fee. The State Department of Labor investigated complaints in 1999 regarding unlawful wage deductions, including these CDM fees. The Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) initially found no violation of Labor Law § 193 (1), deeming the CDM charge a voluntary, separate transaction. However, the Department of Labor commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the fee deduction and wage payment were inseparably connected and violated Labor Law § 193. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the fee deduction, even if optional, constituted an unlawful deduction from wages under Labor Law § 193 (1) (b) and (2), and contravened the legislative intent to protect employees from coercive economic arrangements.

Wage deductionsLabor LawTemporary employmentCash vouchersEmployer feesStatutory interpretationVoluntary deductionsLegislative intentEmployee protectionCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. ADJ9721385
Regular
Jun 07, 2016

JUAN PABLO BELTRAN vs. STRUCTURAL STEEL FABRICATORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning a WCJ's order that disallowed settlement of a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The Board held that parties can settle an SJDB voucher claim in a Compromise and Release Agreement if a good faith dispute exists that could defeat the applicant's entitlement to all workers' compensation benefits. In this case, the applicant's failure to report the injury before termination constituted such a good faith dispute, allowing the settlement of the SJDB voucher. The Board therefore approved the parties' original Compromise and Release Agreement, including the settlement of the SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitCompromise and ReleaseGood Faith DisputeSB863Vocational RehabilitationLabor Code Section 4658.7Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAffirmative DefenseAOE/COE
References
2
Case No. ADJ10588071, ADJ9823909
Regular
Feb 02, 2023

LILLIAN LONA vs. THE DISNEYLAND RESORT, DISNEY ANAHEIM

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: Applicant Lillian Lona sought an extension for her Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher, which expired March 18, 2021, due to COVID-19 restrictions. She argued the pandemic created a legal impossibility preventing her from utilizing the voucher for computer training. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that the unprecedented pandemic circumstances indeed created a legal impossibility excusing timely compliance with the statutory two-year voucher limit. Consequently, the WCAB granted Lona an additional 15 months from the Opinion's service date to use her SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherLabor Code section 4658.7(f)Executive Order N-33-20COVID-19 pandemicstay-at-home orderlegal impossibilitytollingvocational retrainingcomputer training
References
10
Case No. 11-22-00085-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

George Francis Sheehan, Jr. v. Pamela Sheehan

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce where Appellant, George Francis Sheehan, Jr., contended the trial court erred by characterizing proceeds from an underinsured-motorist-claim settlement as community property. George was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 and received a UIM settlement of $1,250,000 in 2019, with a net amount of $710,724.25 deposited into a joint checking account with Pamela Sheehan before their final separation. George argued the funds were his separate property based on a second settlement agreement executed after the funds were received and disbursed, which allocated proceeds to personal injury damages. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, found the first settlement agreement, executed contemporaneously with the mediation, did not allocate specific damages and that the later agreement did not alter the marital property characterization. The court concluded that George failed to meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence which portion of the settlement proceeds was his separate property, as the first settlement released both community and separate property claims. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

divorcecommunity propertyseparate propertyunderinsured motorist claimsettlement proceedsmarital propertyabuse of discretionclear and convincing evidencepersonal injury damagesTexas Family Code
References
20
Case No. SFO 483527
Regular
Aug 07, 2007

CARLOS CORTEZ vs. APRIA HEALTHCARE, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed a finding of unreasonable delay in providing a supplemental job displacement voucher. The Board upheld the $25\%$ increase to the voucher's value and attorney's fees under Labor Code sections $5814$ and $5814.5$, respectively. However, the calculation of both the increased voucher amount and attorney fees was deferred pending further proceedings to determine their exact values.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 5814Unreasonable DelayPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeAttorneys' FeeLabor Code section 4658.5
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,217 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