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. ADJ9355637
Regular
Apr 21, 2017

JESUS TORRES vs. GREENBRAE MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's request to file supplemental briefing regarding his psychiatric injury. The applicant seeks reconsideration of an award that excluded permanent disability from his psychiatric injury, arguing it was a direct result of his physical injury, not a consequence, and that his case qualifies as a "catastrophic injury" or involved a violent act. The Board is allowing the defendant ten days to respond to this new argument, which was not previously addressed at trial. This procedural step aims to ensure due process and full consideration of the applicant's claims.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilitycatastrophic injuryLabor Code section 4660.1psychiatric injuryMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman)supplemental briefingviolent act
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ4039795
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

Errol Holmes vs. SHELL OIL COMPANY, ESIS/EMPLOYERS SELF-INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant's attorney sought additional fees for opposing Shell Oil's writ of review, which the Court of Appeal granted, remanding for supplemental fees. The Appeals Board initially awarded $3,000 based on estimated hours and a reasonable rate after no response was received to a request for itemized fees. The applicant's attorney then claimed he did not receive the request and sought $5,751.57 in fees. Despite treating his letter as a reconsideration petition, the Appeals Board reviewed the matter again and reaffirmed the $3,000 award, finding it adequate and denying any additional compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardErrol HolmesShell Oil CompanyESISEmployers Self-Insurance ServicesPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 5902
References
0
Case No. LAO 744010
Regular
Feb 22, 2008

HOLLIS DILLON vs. INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify applicant's claim regarding improperly denied temporary disability benefits. The Board requires a supplemental petition from the applicant detailing the specific benefits sought, calculation methods, evidence, and legal basis, as the initial petition was unclear. This action aims to resolve ambiguities concerning delayed benefits and potential penalties, especially given prior stipulations on temporary disability payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInglewood Unified School DistrictHollis Dillontemporary disability benefitssick leaveunreasonably delayedpenaltysupplemental petitionReconsiderationStipulations with Request for Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I

Daniel E. Gill, Thomas C. McDermott, and Jay T. Holmes, retired Bausch & Lomb (B & L) executives and participants in the B & L Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I (SERP I), challenged the termination of their monthly benefits and conversion to lump sums following a change of control at B & L. The court found that B & L Human Resources personnel acted as unauthorized fiduciaries in 2007 by interpreting the plan and terminating benefits. The subsequent 2008 decision by the Compensation Committee was also found flawed due to structural conflicts of interest, procedural violations, and abdication of fiduciary responsibility. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the termination of benefits and lump-sum payments violated ERISA and vacated both decisions.

ERISA LitigationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentConflict of InterestPlan AdministrationBenefit DenialChange of ControlLump Sum PaymentsProcedural Violations
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Case No. ADJ6991789
Regular
Oct 19, 2010

BONNIE MCCLINTIC vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. The applicant's own petition for reconsideration, arguing the evidence supported her claim of injury to her psyche, low back, neck, and jaw, was denied. The Board granted the applicant's request to file supplemental petitions in response to the proceedings. The defendant's initial petition was dismissed because they withdrew it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Motor VehiclesState Compensation Insurance FundFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionWCJ ReportApplicantDefendantIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beltrone Construction Co v. McGowan

Petitioner, a prime contractor for a public works project, challenged a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department found petitioner's subcontractor willfully underpaid prevailing wages and supplements, holding petitioner responsible under Labor Law § 223. Petitioner argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted the Department's collection of supplemental benefits, as the Department used a "line-item" method for calculating supplements. The court agreed, ruling that the Department was preempted from enforcing the supplement collection under its promulgated schedule because petitioner was not informed of a policy change to a permissible "total package" approach during the relevant period. Consequently, the determination was annulled, and the petition granted.

Labor LawPrevailing WageWage SupplementsERISA PreemptionPublic Works ContractSubcontractor LiabilityLine-Item MethodTotal Package ApproachAppellate ReviewAdministrative Determination
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,869 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