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. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Norstar Building Corp.

This dissenting opinion concerns the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim brought by plaintiff Leigh Ames, a construction worker who suffered injuries from a fall at an elevated work site. Justices Gorski and Lawton argue against the majority's decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment, asserting that defendants failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing for dismissal. The dissent contends that Ames's accident, involving a fall while attempting to access an elevated work area, falls under the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1), challenging the majority's conclusion that a doorway threshold is not an elevated work site. Citing numerous precedents, the dissenting justices maintain that the lack of appropriate safety devices for elevated access constitutes a violation of the Labor Law. Therefore, they advocate for denying summary judgment to the defendants and modifying the existing order.

Construction accidentElevated work siteSummary judgmentLabor Law violationDissenting opinionLadder safetyAccess to work sitePrima facie caseWorker protectionPersonal injury
References
15
Case No. ADJ4189754 (ANA 0349061)
Regular
Mar 09, 2010

MICHAEL JACOBUS vs. AMERISERVE; CIGA, by its servicing facility, INTERCARE, for RELIANCE INSURANCE, in liquidation

In this case, the defendant sought removal to allow the deposition of a psychiatric AME and to forward applicant's deposition transcript to AMEs, arguing substantial prejudice. The Appeals Board granted removal, allowing the deposition transcript of Dr. Feldman to be offered into evidence. However, the Board deferred the issue of further supplemental reports from the AMEs to the trial judge. The matter was returned to the trial level to be set for trial and for further proceedings.

Removal petitionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Donald Feldman M.D.Charles Rudner M.D.Deposition transcriptIndustrial injuryTruck driverLoader-unloaderLeft kneePsyche
References
1
Case No. ADJ186410
Regular
Jul 09, 2009

ROBIN AMES vs. FEATHER RIVER HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH ROSEVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding cumulative trauma injury for applicant Robin Ames. The defendant argued insufficient medical evidence supported this finding, primarily citing concerns with the treating physician's deposition and the admission of a supplemental report. The Board agreed that Dr. Bugna's reports and deposition did not constitute substantial evidence of cumulative trauma. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision to adequately develop the record on the cumulative trauma issue. The statute of limitations finding in the related case ADJ150167 remains unchanged as it was not appealed.

Petition for ReconsiderationCumulative TraumaMedical EvidenceStatute of LimitationsPQME ReportDeposition TestimonyUnrepresented ApplicantDevelopment of RecordFindings and AwardRescinded
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ8531754
Regular
Mar 11, 2019

ARTURO TRUJILLO vs. TIC THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings and orders, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision stemmed from a dispute over whether an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) interview with the applicant's wife and the applicant's provision of medical records at the AME's deposition constituted impermissible ex parte communication. The WCAB found that the interview with the wife was permissible as a collateral source to supplement the applicant's potentially impaired memory due to a brain injury, and that the provision of records at the deposition was not ex parte as the defendant was present. However, the WCAB remanded the case for the WCJ to determine if the applicant improperly provided information to the AME, as parties must agree on what information is provided to an AME.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationPetition for RemovalMedical-Legal ReportingCollateral InterviewApplicant's WifeDepositionsMedical RecordsSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 4062.3
References
20
Case No. ADJ6550136
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

Vanessa Ford vs. County of San Bernardino

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's disqualification of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) due to ex parte communication during his deposition. The defendant's arguments that the deposition was permissible and that questions exceeded the medical issues were rejected. However, the Board clarified that the AME's prior reports remain admissible and the defendant may seek deposition costs.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)DisqualifiedEx Parte CommunicationDepositionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Administrative DirectorPanel of NeurologistsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
0
Case No. ADJ850295 (GRO 0035125)
Regular
May 24, 2010

Corey Abel vs. BEST BUY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Best Buy's petition for removal, rescinding the administrative law judge's order closing discovery and setting trial. Defendant Best Buy argued the judge erred by closing discovery before a crucial deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Strait, which was scheduled to clarify inconsistencies and permanent disability opinions. The Board found the deposition necessary for a complete record and to facilitate a fair decision or potential settlement. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including completion of the AME's deposition.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorDepositionClosing DiscoveryRescind OrderLumbar Spine InjuryStock ClerkPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentUnorthodox Basis
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. Group Health Inc.

Plaintiffs, including trustees John Ames and Michael Pantony of the United Welfare Fund-Welfare Division (UWF) and participant Fred Tremarcke, sued Group Health Incorporated (GHI) under ERISA and HIPAA. They alleged GHI illegally discriminated against Tremarcke by denying his health coverage after he went on disability leave, arguing it violated HIPAA's anti-discrimination provisions and breached the insurance policy. Tremarcke's employer, Classic Chevrolet, continued making health contributions on his behalf, and a 'Side Letter of Understanding' with his union attempted to maintain his 'active employee' status. The court ultimately ruled in favor of GHI, finding that Tremarcke did not meet the eligibility requirements of the UWF-GHI plan, which required working over 20 hours per week, and that the 'Side Letter' could not unilaterally alter GHI's contractual obligations. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the second and third causes of action.

ERISAHIPAACOBRAHealth InsuranceDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractMulti-employer FundCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 993 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