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. ADJ6467721
Regular
Feb 22, 2012

JOEL HERNANDEZ vs. LOS MOLCAJETES, INC.

The applicant, Joel Hernandez, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a prior decision. However, the petitioner has since withdrawn this petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the withdrawn petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCase Number ADJ6467721Bakersfield District OfficeEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyLos Molcates Inc.Applicant Joel HernandezNovember 29 2011 Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ9964338
Regular
Jan 30, 2018

LYNN KLEIN vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The defendant's petition for reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Judge's January 10, 2017 Findings and Order has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed the petition. The Board did not review the merits of the petition as it was withdrawn.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationKaiser Foundation Health PlanSedgwick Claims ManagementADJ9964338
References
0
Case No. ADJ1821733 (STK 0184965)
Regular
Jun 29, 2009

RAMONA GARCIA vs. METAL IMPROVEMENT, et al.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Ramona Garcia, regarding a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision dated June 2, 2009. The applicant's counsel has withdrawn this petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition as withdrawn.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawn PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantsCase NumberOrder DismissingDecision DateService by Mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ7231557
Regular
Jun 19, 2014

LUCAS PATTIE vs. EL SOL WINERY, HAL LISKE

This case involves a withdrawn petition for removal or reconsideration filed by the applicant, Lucas Pattie, with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board's order dismisses this petition as it has been voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner. The original decision being appealed was issued on April 16, 2014. The dismissal order was dated and filed on June 19, 2014.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7231557Santa Ana District OfficeApplicantDefendantEL SOL WINERY
References
0
Case No. ADJ12518977
Regular
Oct 27, 2020

, Applicant SUSAN GEE vs. , Defendants LUCILLE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, adjusted by MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case involves a petition for removal filed by Susan Gee against Lucille Packard Children's Hospital. The petitioner, Gee, has withdrawn her Petition for Removal concerning an August 17, 2020 Order Compelling Attendance. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The dismissal order was dated and filed on October 27, 2020.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissedWithdrawnLucille Packard Children's HospitalMatrix Absence ManagementApplicantDefendantsCommissioner
References
0
Case No. ADJ3433658 (SRO 0118954)
Regular
Mar 17, 2011

FRANK VONADA vs. GAMBRO HEALTHCARE, SUNNYSIDE REHABILITATION, ESIS, CIGA

The applicant sought removal of an Order Closing Discovery to re-examine disputed medical treatment issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the case based on the applicant's petition for removal and the defendants' answer. The WCJ recommended dismissal as the applicant had previously withdrawn their petition to remove. The WCAB agreed with the WCJ and dismissed the petition for removal because it had been withdrawn.

Petition for RemovalOrder Closing DiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferenceAgreed Medical ExaminerDue ProcessWCJWithdrawal of PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalRe-examination
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06127 [233 AD3d 447]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2024

Melendez v. 106 Mt. Hope LLC

Defendants appealed an order denying their motion to vacate a default judgment. They argued that they mistakenly believed the action would be settled based on representations from plaintiff's employer, who allegedly informed them that plaintiff had withdrawn his claims. However, court documents showed plaintiff had prevailed on a workers' compensation claim and had not withdrawn this civil action. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that the defendants' reliance on these unverified representations did not constitute a reasonable excuse for their default in answering the complaint. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment, without needing to assess the merits of the defense.

Default JudgmentVacate OrderReasonable ExcuseMeritorious DefenseWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureMotion PracticeSettlement DiscussionsFailure to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pinner v. Budget Mortgage Bankers, Ltd.

This Title VII employment discrimination case was brought by plaintiff Elizabeth M. Pinner against Budget Mortgage Bankers, Ltd. Pinner initially asserted five causes of action, but two were withdrawn before trial. The jury found in favor of the defendant on the sexual harassment-hostile work environment claim, but for the plaintiff on her retaliation claim, awarding $4,000 in punitive damages. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs. The Court granted the motion, reducing the requested hourly rate from $350 to $250 and the compensable hours from 133.66 to 130.66, with an additional 5% reduction for unrelated withdrawn claims. Ultimately, the Court awarded $31,041.75 in attorney's fees and $624.90 in costs to the plaintiff.

Employment discriminationTitle VIIRetaliationSexual harassmentHostile work environmentAttorney's feesPunitive damagesCostsLodestar methodPrevailing party
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1981

Claim of Pezzuti v. Village of Endicott

The case involves appeals from five Workers' Compensation Board decisions, consolidated due to common legal and factual questions, concerning whether claimants voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The claimants, firefighters for the Village of Endicott, were receiving benefits under General Municipal Law section 207-a for job-related injuries. Following a 1978 amendment to this law allowing for light duty assignments, the Village directed claimants to return to work. However, the village attorney subsequently withdrew this offer after claimants' counsel indicated intent to seek a restraining order amidst ongoing litigation challenging the amendment's constitutionality. Despite a referee initially discontinuing benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding that the withdrawn offer meant claimants did not voluntarily remove themselves from the labor market. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the offer of employment had been withdrawn.

Workers' Compensation AppealsLabor Market WithdrawalGeneral Municipal Law Section 207-aLight Duty AssignmentDisability Benefits TerminationFirefighter Employment LawBoard Decision ReviewAttorney ConductVoluntary Withdrawal DoctrineAppellate Affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sullivan

This case consolidates two Election Law proceedings initiated by candidates Richard J. Smith and Roseanne Sullivan for the Orange County 18th District county legislator seat, challenging various ballots after a close election. Sullivan sought to nullify two ballots due to extraneous marks, which the court denied, ruling they should be counted. Smith challenged several categories of ballots: three based on residency (withdrawn), six absentee/special ballots due to incomplete applications (granted), four due to handwriting discrepancies (denied), and 27 affidavit ballots (withdrawn). The court also denied Smith's request to allow 26 voters, who received incorrect ballots at the Bullville firehouse and did not return to cast affidavit ballots, to vote post-election, citing a lack of judicial authority to extend voting. The court highlighted the limitations of its power under Election Law Article 16, distinguishing the case from scenarios involving already cast ballots in incorrect districts.

Ballot ChallengesAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsVoter DisenfranchisementExtraneous MarksHandwriting AnalysisPoll Worker ErrorAffidavit BallotsOrange County ElectionsJudicial Authority
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 218 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