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. ADJ4599426 (STK 0172874) ADJ1616335 (STK 0186679)
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

JASON HONOR vs. DOT FOODS, AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied American Protection's petition for reconsideration regarding applicant Jason Honor's claims. The Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, amending the initial findings to correct a clerical error in the date of injury for the cumulative trauma claim and to include a finding of psyche injury. However, the Board affirmed the initial decision that the applicant did not sustain injury to his hips or bilateral lower extremities in the June 4, 2000, injury. Further development of the record is required regarding temporary disability, permanent disability, and apportionment for the June 4, 2000 injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersNew and Further DisabilityCumulative TraumaStipulated AwardClerical ErrorApplicant's PetitionAmerican Protection InsuranceSentry Insurance
References
1
Case No. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. American Protective Services of New York, Inc.

Raleigh L. Hams sued American Protective Services of New York, Inc. alleging race, sex, and disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and defamation under Title VII and the ADA. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, granted in part and denied in part APS's motion to dismiss. Harris's claims for race, disability, and sexual harassment were dismissed with prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim. His retaliation and defamation claims were dismissed with leave to replead. APS's motion to dismiss the disparate treatment sex discrimination claim was denied. All of Harris's motions to amend, vacate an arbitrator's decision, and for a preliminary injunction were denied.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADARace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentDefamationMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n

TransAtlantic Lines LLC sought to overturn an adverse insurance coverage decision by the Board of Directors of American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, following a shipping accident. TransAtlantic argued for a de novo review, asserting the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process was fundamentally unfair due to the Board's inherent financial bias and violated public policy. The district court, however, applied the contractually agreed-upon "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. The court rejected TransAtlantic's claims of bias and public policy violations, finding that TransAtlantic had voluntarily consented to the ADR framework. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision to deny coverage for attorney's fees, U.S. Government cargo losses, and perishable cargo expenses, concluding that these denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardContract LawMarine InsuranceJudicial Review of ArbitrationWaiver of RightsPublic Policy ExceptionAttorney Ethics
References
24
Case No. ADJ3523217 (OAK 0271650)
Regular
Apr 20, 2010

PAULINE ROACH ARREDONDO vs. MAJOR LEGAL SERVICES AND ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE, American Protection/Broadspire

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the prior orders. The Board allowed the applicant's election against St. Paul Travelers Insurance, finding its prior liability res judicata. Discovery by newly-joined defendant American Protection/Broadspire was stayed pending resolution of the claim against St. Paul. This decision supports the applicant's right to elect against a carrier with established liability.

Petition for RemovalElection Against CarrierLabor Code 5500.5(c)Res JudicataInterim Findings Award and OrderSt. Paul Travelers InsuranceAmerican Protection/BroadspireWCJ Report and RecommendationDiscovery StayWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ4348361 (STK 0170600)
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

Richard Horton vs. Crown Cork and Seal, American Protection Insurance Company, BROADSPIRE, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

This case concerns defendant American Protection Insurance Company's (APIC) petition for contribution from Travelers Insurance Company for benefits paid to applicant Richard Horton. The Arbitrator denied APIC's petition, finding contribution was precluded because a prior stipulated award did not grant "new and distinct benefits." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the Arbitrator's decision. The Board determined that a supplemental award granting new and further permanent disability, including a psyche injury claim, constituted new and distinct benefits subject to contribution, even if the original award was time-barred. The matter was returned for further proceedings to determine the extent of APIC's contribution rights.

ContributionReconsiderationPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityInjury to the PsycheCompensable ConsequenceStipulated AwardArbitrator"New and Distinct Benefits"Labor Code Section 5500.5
References
5
Case No. ADJ 4359672 (VNO 0478019)
Regular
Apr 08, 2016

JORGE OROZCO vs. MARRIOTT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES/INTERSTATE HOTELS AND RESORTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, CENTURY PLAZA HOTEL

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an insolvent insurer's obligations under a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant settled a cumulative trauma injury claim, and the settlement agreement apportioned liability for remaining lien claims among insurers, including American Protection Company. After American Protection Company became insolvent, CIGA stepped in, but sought dismissal, arguing its liability was not joint and several and no "other insurance" existed. The Board affirmed the dismissal of CIGA, holding that the original joint and several nature of the insurers' liability, as established by case law and the settlement, means Zurich North America's remaining liability constitutes "other insurance" relieving CIGA.

CIGAAmerican Protection Insurance CompanyMarriott Downtown Los AngelesInterstate Hotels and ResortsZurich North AmericaCentury Plaza HotelBroadspireSedgwick Claims Management ServicesCompromise and Release Agreementcumulative trauma
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1990

UBAF Arab American Bank v. Sanchez

Plaintiff UBAF Arab American Bank sued its former vice-president, Sanchez, for $11.5 million due to unauthorized foreign exchange transactions and falsified bank records. Plaintiff sought discovery of Sanchez's credit card and bank records, which was initially denied by protective orders citing privacy. After obtaining some Citibank records, plaintiff moved to reargue and renew these orders. The Supreme Court modified the previous orders, granting plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew. Consequently, protective orders were vacated regarding Sanchez's credit card records and a Citibank deposition, allowing further discovery, but affirmed the protective order concerning the Royce Hotel records. The court emphasized that discovery should facilitate proving a case and is not contingent on prior proof of financial benefit.

DiscoveryProtective OrderForeign ExchangeFalsifying RecordsBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentFraudBank RecordsCredit Card RecordsNon-party Deposition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. LAO 863258, LAO 863456
Regular
Oct 02, 2007

JULIE A. ALBRIGHT vs. SUN HEALTH CARE, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that American Home Assurance, administered by Broadspire, was liable for administering an award for applicant Julie Albright's cumulative trauma injury. Despite covering only 39% of the period, the Board found it equitable for American Home Assurance to administer the award, given their responsibility for a specific injury and the potential confusion of dual administrators. The Board also upheld the determination of the cumulative trauma injury date and the administrator's responsibility for temporary disability payments.

WCABReconsiderationPetitionFindings and AwardAmerican Home AssuranceBroadspireCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryLabor Code § 5412Labor Code § 4656 (c) (1)
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,022 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