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. SRO 0120101, SRO 0120100
Regular
Mar 28, 2008

CYNTHIA L. RICH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SONOMA DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over how to calculate temporary disability indemnity for an injured worker. The employer argues that indemnity should be based on the applicant's wages at the time of injury, while the applicant seeks a higher rate based on her earning capacity and anticipated future wage increases. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that a strict application of the wage at the time of injury may not be reasonable given the applicant's employment history and potential for future raises. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine earning capacity based on reasonably anticipated cost of living adjustments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersTemporary Disability IndemnityEarning CapacityAverage Weekly EarningsDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 4453(d)Permanent DisabilityMedical Treatment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Penkalski v. McCall

A police officer, the petitioner, filed for accidental disability retirement benefits after injuring his knee in a slip and fall on wet grass while pursuing a suspect. The respondent denied the application, arguing that the incident did not qualify as an "accident" under the Retirement and Social Security Law, considering it an inherent risk of police work. The court upheld the respondent's decision, asserting that an injury is only accidental if it results from an event not ordinarily anticipated within the scope of employment. Given that chasing suspects and encountering various environmental conditions, including wet grass, are inherent to police duties, the slip and fall was deemed an anticipated risk.

Accidental DisabilityRetirement BenefitsPolice OfficerSlip and FallInherent RiskEmployment AccidentCPLR Article 78Appellate DivisionNew York LawPublic Employment
References
4
Case No. 84-44379
Regular Panel Decision

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Heard

This case involves an original proceeding where Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Corporation (relators) sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Wyatt H. Heard. The relators challenged a discovery order in a lawsuit filed by Nike Adegbite, which stemmed from a fatal accident involving a Toyota vehicle. Toyota argued that investigation documents prepared before Adegbite filed suit were protected by attorney work product and party communications privileges, as they were created in anticipation of litigation. The court reviewed the 'anticipation of litigation' standard, citing various Texas precedents, and the trial court's discretion in such matters. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering the production of the documents.

DiscoveryPrivilegeAttorney Work Product PrivilegeParty Communications PrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationWrit of MandamusProduct LiabilityAutomobile AccidentDiscovery OrderTrial Court Discretion
References
12
Case No. 03-18-00243-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2018

Leander Independent School District v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Leander Independent School District (LISD) appealed a district court's judgment compelling the disclosure of its "Complaints Document" to a news reporter under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). LISD argued the document was protected by exceptions including deliberative process, work product, constitutional and common law privacy, and litigation anticipation. The appellate court, reviewing de novo, determined the document contained purely factual information, not protected by deliberative process or work product privileges. It also found LISD failed to establish constitutional or common law privacy rights applied, or that litigation was reasonably anticipated. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the requirement for LISD to release the information.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestGovernment TransparencyDeliberative Process PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeConstitutional PrivacyCommon Law PrivacyLitigation AnticipationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
69
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08589 [156 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

Matter of Martins v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Fred Martins, a state trooper, sought accidental disability retirement benefits for two separate knee injuries sustained in November 2012 and July 2013. The first occurred while playing basketball during training, and the second from tripping on a tile at a dimly lit dispatch center. Respondent Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, denied both applications, concluding that neither incident constituted an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence that the injuries resulted from risks that could have been reasonably anticipated or were due to the petitioner's own misstep, and thus were not accidental injuries within the meaning of the law. The court noted that injuries from activities in ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event, or from readily observable and anticipated conditions, do not qualify as accidental.

Accidental Disability RetirementState TrooperKnee InjuryTrip and FallBasketball InjuryAnticipated RiskOrdinary EmploymentCPLR Article 78Disability BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Marsh

The Relator, the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Mary Ida Castellano, sought a writ of mandamus to overturn a trial court's order compelling the discovery of an internal investigation report. The investigation was conducted by the Relator's personnel director, Dana Wray, after the fatal injury of Harvey Castellano, but before the lawsuit was filed, under the advice of attorney James McNutt. Relator claimed the investigation results were privileged under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(d) as they were made in anticipation of litigation. The trial court denied the protective order, a decision affirmed by this court. Chief Justice Osborn, writing for the court, clarified that the litigation privilege can apply before a suit is filed if there is "good cause" to anticipate litigation, but this requires "outward manifestations of future litigation" by the opposing party. The court concluded that Relator's subjective belief or attorney's prediction, without such outward manifestations from Castellano, did not establish "good cause" for the privilege to attach to Wray's investigation. Consequently, the petition for mandamus was denied.

mandamusdiscoverylitigation privilegegood causewrongful deathinternal investigationTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(d)anticipation of litigationemployer investigationprivileged communication
References
6
Case No. 348-162629-94
Regular Panel Decision

D.N.S. v. Schattman

Relator D.N.S., M.D. (Dr. S.) seeks mandamus relief against an order by the trial court compelling him to produce a narrative report to Michael Anderson, the real party in interest. Dr. S. prepared this report for his professional liability insurer after receiving a healthcare liability claim notice from Anderson, who had sued his employers for wrongful termination, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to a work injury and drug screen. Anderson later added Dr. S. as a defendant and requested the narrative report during discovery, which Dr. S. objected to based on attorney-client, party-communication, and investigative privileges. The trial court ordered the production, citing that the report was prepared in anticipation of trial and testimony, and formed the basis of Dr. S.'s mental impressions as an expert, ruling it discoverable under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166b(2)(e)(l). The appellate court disagreed, holding that the specific rule for tangible reports, 166b(2)(e)(2), should apply, and found no evidence that the report was prepared in anticipation of Dr. S.'s testimony as an expert, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted, requiring the trial court to vacate the order compelling production of the privileged narrative report.

MandamusDiscovery DisputePrivileged CommunicationAttorney-Client PrivilegeParty-Communication PrivilegeExpert Witness TestimonyHealthcare Liability ClaimWorkers' CompensationDrug ScreenAbuse of Discretion
References
12
Case No. ADJ7372920
Regular
Mar 12, 2012

SHELBY ANDREWS vs. COMFORT SYSTEMS, DISCOVERY PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Comfort Systems and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration. This action is necessary to allow the Board further opportunity to study the factual and legal issues involved in the applicant's case. The Board anticipates conducting further proceedings to ensure a just and reasoned decision is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationGallagher BassettElectronic Adjudication Management SystemRonnie G. CaplaneFrank M. Brass
References
0
Case No. GRO 0033398
Regular
Jan 17, 2008

JOSEPH BERTAO vs. CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant seeking to challenge his permanent disability rating by obtaining expert testimony. The applicant requested defendants advance costs for this expert evaluation, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied this request. The WCAB found no statutory basis to order advancement of costs for future expert evaluation and could not determine if the anticipated evidence would be reasonable and necessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoseph BertaoCrystal Springs WaterState Compensation Insurance FundPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleReconsiderationAdvance CostsLabor Code Section 5811Costa v. Hardy DiagnosticAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
2
Case No. ADJ9243095
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

CLIFFORD ROZIER vs. MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES/TIG, administered by FAIRMONT PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, TORONTO RAPTORS/TIG, administered by ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS/TIG, administered by ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Order regarding applicant Clifford Rozier's evidence. However, applicant Rozier died on July 6, 2018, and a death benefit claim is anticipated. Due to this significant development, the WCAB rescinded the prior Findings and Order. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings to address the new circumstances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMinnesota TimberwolvesToronto RaptorsGolden State WarriorsFairmont Premier InsuranceZenith InsuranceFindings and OrderAdmissibility of evidenceDeath benefitsRescinded
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 93 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