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. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. ADJ4134943 (LAO 0800933) ADJ2639030 (LAO 0847979)
Regular
Nov 09, 2015

Arturo Guillen vs. PRO AMERICA PREMIUM TOOLS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, PACIFIC NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) successfully petitioned for reconsideration, leading the Board to find the applicant sustained two separate cumulative trauma injuries. The Board clarified the dates of these injuries: August 17, 1999, through August 17, 2000, and August 29, 2000, through August 29, 2001. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address apportionment, joint and several liability between CIGA and Highlands Insurance Company, and other outstanding issues.

CIGAPacific National Insurance Companyliquidationcumulative traumatwo cumulative injuriesjoint and several liabilityHighlands Insurance CompanyapportionmentLabor Code 4663Labor Code 4664
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2006

Nazario v. Fortunato & Fortunato, PLLC

The plaintiff initiated a legal malpractice action against a law firm and its members, alleging their failure to timely commence a personal injury action for injuries sustained in a workplace accident in August 2000. Plaintiff claimed a falling pipe caused a right rotator cuff tear and herniated discs, although the defendants successfully handled the workers' compensation claim. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of causal relationship between the 2000 accident and the claimed injuries, revealing plaintiff's extensive history of similar injuries from prior and subsequent automobile accidents, which he failed to disclose to treating physicians. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff failed to counter the defendants' evidence and raise a triable issue of fact regarding the causation of his injuries from the August 2000 incident.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentCausationPrior AccidentsUndisclosed Medical HistoryWorkers' Compensation ClaimPersonal InjuryRotator CuffHerniated DiscsAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. ADJ4191064 (AHM 0091361) ADJ3063740 (AHM 0095797)
Regular
Jan 11, 2010

JOSE BARRIOS vs. McPEEK CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., GAB ROBINS, BROADSPIRE, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Kemper Insurance, Pacific National Company, Cal Indemnity, CalComp Insurance, Pacific Auto Insurance Company

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's neck, back, shoulders, and wrists. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the date of injury for this cumulative trauma claim. Based on established law regarding the "date of injury" for cumulative trauma, the Board determined that the period of compensable temporary disability commencing in August 2000 constituted sufficient knowledge and disability to establish the injury date. Consequently, liability for the claim, which involved multiple insurers now adjusted by CIGA, was assigned accordingly with a revised injury end date of August 3, 2000.

CIGAKemper InsurancePacific National Companyliquidationcovered claimscumulative traumadate of injurytemporary total disabilityLabor Code section 5500.5Rodarte
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharpe v. Webb

The case concerns a plaintiff's claim for no-fault lost wage benefits after sustaining knee injuries in an August 2000 automobile accident. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was unemployed, having just relocated. He argued for compensation based on "demonstrated future earnings reasonably projected," specifically his delayed entry into the New York State Police Academy due to his injuries. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that his aspirational goal to join the police academy was too speculative at the time of the August 2000 application to qualify as reasonably projected future earnings. The decision emphasizes that the No-Fault Law requires some certainty of measurement for lost wages at the application date, aiming to compensate actual economic loss rather than provide for speculative future income.

no-faultlost wage benefitsfuture earningsunemploymentknee injuryState Police Academyinsurance claimseconomic lossstatutory interpretationNew York law
References
3
Case No. 530732-98
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2001

Cohen v. Anne C.

Ms. C., a patient diagnosed with schizo-affective and bipolar disorders, appealed an August 2000 court order extending her Assisted Outpatient Treatment (A.O.T.) under New York's Kendra's Law (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60). This case represents the first jury appeal of a Kendra's Law A.O.T. order. The court, presided over by Justice Norman C. Ryp, addressed novel procedural questions regarding the nature of the proceeding, the parties' roles, and the burden of proof. It concluded that the proceeding was an appeal, with Ms. C. as the appellant bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, limited to the evidence presented at the initial August 2000 hearing. The jury verdict, rendered on March 8, 2001, affirmed the prior A.O.T. extension order.

Kendra's LawAssisted Outpatient TreatmentMental Hygiene LawJury AppealMental IllnessSchizo-affective DisorderBipolar DisorderAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseDue Process
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

University of Houston v. Barth

Stephen Barth, a tenured professor at the University of Houston, sued the University under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation after he reported financial misconduct by the college dean, Alan Stutts. A jury found in favor of Barth, awarding him damages and attorney's fees. The University appealed, raising issues of jurisdiction due to untimely grievances and sufficiency of evidence for Barth's good faith report and causation. The appellate court found Barth's March 10, 2000 grievance untimely, stripping the trial court of jurisdiction over related claims. However, his August 17, 2000 grievance, regarding his 2000 evaluation, was deemed timely. The court also affirmed the legal sufficiency of evidence for causation and Barth's report regarding state contract law. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the timely claims.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationAdverse Employment ActionGrievance ProcedureTimelinessJurisdictionLegal SufficiencyCausationDisparate TreatmentGovernment Contracts
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kenneth V.

This is an appeal from a Family Court order that found respondent August V., Ill neglected his children. The proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, alleging neglect due to the parents' refusal to accept intensive counseling for two children exhibiting aggressive behavior, including wielding a knife. The Family Court initially found the father neglected all seven children. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence of parental misconduct by the father. The court determined that treatment recommendations were not directly communicated to the father, and he was unaware of the escalated fighting. Consequently, the petition against August V., Ill was dismissed due to insufficient proof of neglect.

NeglectChild protectionParental misconductFamily lawChild welfareAbuseErie CountyAppellate reviewParental responsibilityMental health services
References
6
Case No. ADJ801957 (LAO 0798054) ADJ2438083 (LAO 0851450)
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ROBERTO CORTEZ vs. ESP 2000, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves two industrial injuries sustained by Roberto Cortez as a deliveryman. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a joint findings and award, confirming two separate injuries in 2000 and a cumulative trauma injury from 2000-2001. The Board also affirmed the judge's calculation of applicant's attorney's fees as a percentage of the award, rather than an hourly rate, despite a dispute over the application of Labor Code section 4066. Ultimately, the Board agreed with the judge's findings on liability and attorney's fees, affirming the original award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoberto CortezESP 2000 Inc.California Insurance Guarantee AssociationFremont Insurance CompanyTIG Insurance CompanyADJ801975ADJ2438083specific injurycumulative trauma
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manns v. Norstar Building Corp.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Erie County, affirmed an order concerning a third-party claim for contractual indemnification. The original action involved a plaintiff seeking damages for employment-related injuries sustained in October 2000. The third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint was denied, while the defendants-third-party plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment on contractual indemnification were granted. The appellate court found that despite the contract being signed in January 2001, its unequivocal language established an effective date of August 10, 2000, predating the plaintiff's accident. Consequently, Workers' Compensation Law § 11 was deemed not to prohibit the enforcement of the indemnification provision.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawContract InterpretationEffective Date of ContractAppellate ReviewErie CountyNew York LawPersonal Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,364 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