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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham & Straus, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 30

Abraham & Straus (A&S) sought a preliminary injunction against defendant Local 30 to stop picketing and job actions concerning engineer and mechanic staffing at a new Roosevelt Field store. A&S argued these actions violated their collective bargaining agreement's no-strike and arbitration clauses. Local 30 contended the dispute was purely representational, not arbitrable, and that Boys Markets relief did not apply to picketing alone. The court found the dispute arbitrable due to the broad arbitration clause and the union's previous intent to arbitrate. It also determined that Boys Markets injunctions could cover picketing, especially when it caused work stoppages, ultimately granting A&S's request and ordering arbitration.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClausePicketingWork StoppageBoys Markets ExceptionLabor Management Relations ActFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v. Praetorian Insurance

This case involves a provider seeking assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. The court addressed three main issues: the timeliness of claim submission for services rendered in May 2007, the adequacy of a "fee schedule review" for services from May to August 2007, and the medical necessity of acupuncture services from August 29 to September 6, 2007, based on an independent medical examination. The court found an issue of fact regarding claim mailing for the May services and insufficient evidence for the fee schedule review. However, it granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the claim for services from August 29 to September 6, 2007, due to a lack of medical necessity established by the IME report.

No-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesSummary JudgmentMedical NecessityClaim TimelinessFee Schedule ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationInsurance Regulations
References
3
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314), ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316), ADJ460036 (GOL 0101315)
Regular
Jul 26, 2012

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original findings regarding employment for both United Staffing Associates and Monarch Consulting. The Board found that United Staffing Associates was never the applicant's employer, rescinding findings that they were the employer on October 8, 2007, and for a cumulative trauma period. Regarding Monarch Consulting, the Board found they were not the employer on October 2, 2006, but were the general employer from March 2006 through August 30, 2007, with specific exclusions, reversing the prior ruling on the specific injury date. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with these revised findings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchEstate of Michael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. ADJ11146153
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

MARIA CUNNINGHAM vs. RAMCO ENTERPRISES, LP

The WCAB granted reconsideration, affirming temporary disability for the applicant from April 7, 2018, to August 30, 2018. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that the applicant was estopped from receiving benefits due to refusing modified work, as the offer was only for the 2017 season and no offer existed for 2018. While agreeing the defendant's delays estopped them from challenging temporary disability, the Board limited this to the period until the applicant could be examined by a newly authorized treating physician. The issue of temporary disability after August 30, 2018, was deferred pending further medical reports.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityModified WorkEstoppelQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianSeasonal HarvesterBerry IndustryIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ800751 (VNO 0554673)
Regular
May 24, 2012

RUBEN KESHISHIAN vs. PROGRESS RAIL SERVICE/VIC'S TRUCKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding Ruben Keshishian was employed as a truck driver by Progress Rail Service on August 30, 2007. This finding was supported by the WCJ's analysis under the *Borello* factors, which the Board adopted. The decision was further supported by cited cases from the California Supreme Court and appellate courts. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedEmployment StatusTruck DriverS.G. Borello & SonsLiberty Mutual InsuranceProgress Rail ServiceVic's TruckingWCJ OpinionAdministrative Law Judge
References
3
Case No. BAK 0139458
Regular
Jan 18, 2008

NORMAN T. WILLIAMS vs. PEPSI CO/FRITO LAY, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration and removal because it was untimely filed. The claimant's representative admitted receiving the notice of intent to dismiss on August 28, 2007, making the filing deadline September 24, 2007, but the petition was not filed until November 19, 2007. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition as the claimant offered no good cause for the delay.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lien ClaimWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeSettlement AuthorityOfficial Address RecordService by MailTimeliness
References
10
Case No. ADJ3853793 (SRO 0141299)
Regular
Feb 23, 2015

CHRISTINA LAURA LEPE DUARTE vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the end date of temporary disability payments. The Board previously amended an award to extend temporary disability to August 7, 2009. The defendant argued this violated Labor Code section 4656's two-year limitation. However, the Board denied reconsideration, reaffirming that under *Hawkins v. Amberwood Products*, the two-year period begins on the date of the first *payment* of temporary disability, not when it was first owed. Since the first payment was August 8, 2007, the 104-week period validly extended to August 7, 2009.

ADJ3853793FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANYHARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANYLabor Code section 4656temporary disabilitycompensable weeksdate of commencement of temporary disability paymentHawkins v. Amberwood Productsindustrial injuryneck
References
1
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,762 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