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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Osorio v. Conway

Carlos Osorio, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1999 New York state conviction for various crimes, including burglary and robbery. He argued insufficient evidence, improper jury instructions on identification, erroneous admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The District Court, presided over by Judge Chin, denied the petition. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, the jury charge was proper, and the evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the court determined that the prosecutor's comments did not violate due process and Osorio's counsel provided effective assistance, having conveyed plea offers and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding an alibi defense. Consequently, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidencePretrial IdentificationDue ProcessCriminal ProcedureState ConvictionFederal Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Kimble v. McGinnis

Joseph Kimble, a pro se petitioner, filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 Erie County conviction for murder, robbery, and weapon possession. Kimble argued he was deprived of a fair trial due to the jury's inadvertent viewing of a brief autopsy videotape of the naked victim during trial. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended denying the petition, finding that although the incident was careless, it did not amount to a due process violation given its brevity, lack of gruesomeness, and the curative instructions provided to the jury. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, denying the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

habeas corpusdue processfair trialevidentiary errorautopsy videojury instructionprosecutorial misconductcircumstantial evidencemurder conviction challengerobbery conviction challenge
References
17
Case No. VNO 178912 LAO 571596
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration, writ of mandate, and removal. The WCAB found that the order denying an expedited hearing was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

WCABOpinion and OrdersDismissing PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of MandatePetition for RemovalExpedited Hearing5402 PresumptionLabor Code Section 5402Interlocutory Procedural Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ10250093
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

DENIS PADILLA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant, Denis Padilla, versus their employer, Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Padilla's Petition for Reconsideration in this matter. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion on DecisionPermit Self-InsuredADJ10250093Pomona District OfficeDenying PetitionWCJ ReportAdopted Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parson v. Portuondo

Petitioner Jerry E. Parson sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. He objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny his petition, arguing his reply brief was overlooked. The District Court conducted a full review, addressing Parson's claims of alibi defense preclusion and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the alibi claim procedurally barred and lacking actual prejudice, and determined that the Appellate Division's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to established federal law. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, and a certificate of appealability was withheld.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselalibi defenseprocedural defaultactual prejudiceconstitutional rightsfederal reviewcriminal procedurejudicial reviewconviction
References
16
Case No. 535717
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Denis Campos

The Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department affirmed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim filed by Denis Campos. Claimant Campos, a construction worker, sought benefits after an accident. The Board had ruled that American Zurich Insurance Company was the liable workers' compensation carrier due to an improperly canceled policy, as per Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). American Zurich's appeal, including a request for reconsideration and full Board review, was denied because they failed to present crucial evidence to the Workers' Compensation Law Judge despite prior directives. The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider newly submitted evidence on administrative appeal and affirmed the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Carrier LiabilityPolicy CancellationAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesJudicial DiscretionConstruction AccidentLadder FallThird Judicial Department
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Case No. ADJ9214889
Regular
Dec 08, 2014

JIE BAI vs. PEBBLE BEACH, INTERCARE

This case involves applicant Jie Bai's petitions for reconsideration and removal stemming from two separate orders by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions, adopting the judge's reasoning. Reconsideration was denied regarding sanctions imposed on applicant's attorney for a late appearance, finding the attorney's tardiness and lack of excuse justified the sanction. Removal was denied regarding a change of venue to Salinas, as the judge found good cause based on the applicant's residence, injury location, and logistical convenience, despite the applicant's counsel's objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Imposing SanctionsOrder Changing VenueWorkers' Compensation JudgeLabor Code §5813Title 8CCR §10561Failure to Appear
References
0
Case No. ADJ2103088
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

DONNA FUNCHEON vs. SAN LEANDRO HOSPITAL, CNA CLAIMS PLUS, AMERICAN CASUALTY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

This case involves Zurich American Insurance petitioning for reconsideration of an order awarding applicant's counsel $181,883.97 in attorney fees based on a finding of permanent total disability. Zurich argued that their subsequent petition for a writ of review stayed the attorney fee order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, clarifying that a writ petition does not automatically stay or suspend the effect of a WCAB decision. The Board further noted that execution of an award requires a certified copy, which is not issued during pending judicial review, but warned Zurich of potential penalties for non-payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney FeesPermanently Totally DisabledWrit of ReviewLabor Code § 5956Certified CopyCivil JudgmentLabor Code § 5814Penalty
References
1
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 17,196 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