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. ADJ3747523 (POM 0264468)
Regular
Oct 17, 2008

RICHARD E. GONZALES vs. DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found the prior decision relied on an improper evidentiary basis by using a stipulation from a nearly identical case to determine the reasonableness of the facility fee. The matter must be re-evaluated with proper evidence and adherence to the guidelines set forth in *Scott Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc.* for determining reasonable facility fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFacility FeeReasonable ChargesOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLabor Code Section 4600Kunz GuidelinesEvidentiary BurdenDiagnostic Arthroscopy
References
3
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. ADJ729345 (ANA 0287447) ADJ2923354 (ANA 0305541)
Regular
Oct 05, 2009

ALAN YOUNG vs. UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES/TIDELANDS OIL; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC.

Applicant's petition for reconsideration is denied for reasons expressed by the WCJ and those set forth. Apportionment of permanent disability was properly determined, and the amount of indemnity due is calculated after apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnion Pacific ResourcesCambridge Integrated Services GroupInc.ADJ729345ADJ2923354specific injurycumulative traumaapportionmentpermanent disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

La Fountaine v. Franzese

This personal injury action concerns a plaintiff (a minor) who suffered lead poisoning between April 1992 and September 1993 while living in an apartment owned and managed by the defendants. Routine medical examinations revealed elevated blood lead levels, prompting the Albany County Department of Health to order lead abatement procedures, which the defendants performed inadequately. Experts testified that the lead poisoning caused permanent disorders, including ADHD, cognitive, and reading disorders, which were not capable of practical apportionment between pre-notice and post-notice exposure periods. The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $300,000 for future lost earnings, assigning 70% liability to the defendants. Defendants appealed the judgment and the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict, arguing lack of liability before notice, erroneous jury instructions, and excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment and order, finding the defendants' arguments without merit and upholding the jury's findings on non-apportionment of injuries and the reasonableness of the damage awards.

Lead poisoningLandlord liabilityPersonal injury damagesNon-apportionment of injuriesADHDCognitive disordersEnvironmental lead hazardInadequate abatementExpert medical testimonyJury verdict review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whiteman v. Richmor Aviation, Inc.

This case is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed on February 8, 2007, which found the claimant's application for review untimely. The current appeal arises from the same aircraft accident and involves an identical issue as Matter of Hiser v Richmor Aviation, Inc. Citing the reasons set forth in Matter of Hiser, the court reverses the Workers' Compensation Board's decision and remits the matter back to the Board for consideration of the merits of the claimant’s argument.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision ReversalRemand for MeritsAircraft Accident ClaimPrecedent CaseJudicial ReviewProcedural IssueAppellate DivisionClaimant Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2010

Claim of Moreno v. Licea

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The first decision, filed April 6, 2009, established an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and 2180 Realty Corporation. The second decision, filed October 16, 2009, denied the claimant's request for reconsideration or full Board review. The court affirmed these decisions, aligning with the reasons set forth in *Matter of Perez v Licea*, a case with identical issues decided herewith. Additionally, the court noted Joseph Edelman's acknowledgment of discussing work performance with the claimant. The claimant's appeal regarding the denial of full Board review or reconsideration was deemed abandoned.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipBoard DecisionsReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionsAbandoned AppealJudicial Concurrence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2007

Lazier v. Strickland Avenue Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant Styles Steel Erecting & Steel Fabrications and a cross-appeal by the defendant third-party plaintiff 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. The appeals concern an action to recover damages for personal injuries, specifically focusing on motions to set aside a jury verdict regarding fault apportionment and to strike expert witness testimony. The Supreme Court's decision to grant the motion to set aside the verdict finding 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. 70% at fault was affirmed, as no evidence showed its authority to supervise the work. The court also affirmed the denial of Styles Steel's motion to strike expert testimony and to set aside the jury's finding of 30% fault against it, concluding there was a valid line of reasoning for the jury's verdict, including the finding of a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and appeals from earlier orders were dismissed as superseded by the final order.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictFault ApportionmentExpert WitnessCPLR 4404CPLR 3101Labor Law 200Workers' Compensation Law 11Grave InjuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ1377755 (FRE 0242857) ADJ1891281 (FRE 0242858)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

RUDOLPH GUTIERREZ vs. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE, CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant Gutierrez's petition for reconsideration of a January 19, 2010 stipulation and order. Applicant contended the settlement was not secured with his consent. The Board treated his petition as a motion to set aside the award. The case is returned to the trial level for the judge to consider the set-aside petition and conduct further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderPro SeAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedReturned to Trial LevelAwardConsent
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridgewood Savings Bank v. Houston (In Re Houston)

The debtor, Leonard W. Houston, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Plaintiff Ridgewood Savings Bank, holding a mortgage on the debtor's home, commenced an adversary proceeding to vacate the automatic stay to facilitate foreclosure. A default judgment was granted against the debtor for failure to appear, which he moved to set aside, citing excusable neglect due to an ankle injury. The case was remanded on appeal for further findings. The court found that while the debtor's failure to appear constituted excusable neglect, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as he lacked equity in the property and had not made mortgage payments or reimbursed the bank for taxes for an extended period, leading to a lack of adequate protection for the Bank. Consequently, the court denied the debtor's application to set aside the default judgment.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayDefault JudgmentForeclosureExcusable NeglectMeritorious DefenseAdequate ProtectionMortgage LienChapter 13Equity Cushion
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levitt v. Board of Collective Bargaining

The City of New York promulgated Personnel Policy and Procedure Bulletin number 401-86, requiring city employees to disclose and repay debts as a condition for appointment or promotion. Three unions challenged this policy before the Board of Collective Bargaining, asserting it constituted an improper labor practice as it unilaterally changed terms of employment without collective bargaining. The Board sided with the unions, ruling the city had acted improperly. The City then petitioned the court to set aside the Board's determination. The court granted the City's petition, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and arbitrary, concluding that the policy concerned management's fundamental right to set employee qualifications and maintain integrity, and was therefore exempt from mandatory collective bargaining. The court also critiqued the Board's balancing test regarding employee privacy rights.

Improper Labor PracticeCollective BargainingManagerial PrerogativeDebt CollectionEmployee QualificationsPublic EmployeesPrivacy RightsAdministrative CodeJudicial ReviewPERB
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 5,429 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