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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Austin

Plaintiff John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company sued defendant Barbara L. Austin under the Labor Management Relations Act and New York law, alleging violation of a Covenant Not to Compete, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business. Austin, a former employee, allegedly retained confidential John Hancock records and used them to induce former clients to cancel their policies after joining a competitor. Austin moved for summary judgment, asserting the covenant was unenforceable. The court, applying New York law based on federal common law principles, determined that the restrictive covenant was reasonable in scope, time, and purpose, aiming to protect John Hancock's legitimate interest in confidential customer information rather than broadly restraining competition. Therefore, the court denied Austin's motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact regarding Austin's actions and potential damages necessitate a trial.

Covenant Not to CompeteCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceSummary Judgment MotionFederal Common LawChoice of LawConfidential Customer InformationTrade SecretsRestrictive Covenants
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Calhoon

Anderson Austin, a long-standing member of The National Marine Engineer’s Beneficial Association (MEBA), filed a suit against Jesse M. Calhoon, Chairman of the MEBA Pension Trust, seeking a disability pension. Austin, who had suffered from a duodenal ulcer since 1961, applied for the pension in 1967, but his application was rejected by the Board of Trustees in 1971 based on a medical judgment. Calhoon moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Austin's claim involved a uniquely private medical judgment rather than an issue of contract interpretation or union interests, thus falling outside the scope of Section 301 jurisdiction.

Labor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRAPension BenefitsDisability PensionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining AgreementMedical JudgmentIndividual RightsUnion Interests
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1992

Claim of Stokes v. Permanente

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury after being struck by a car while crossing a street from a parking lot to her workplace. This decision and an amended decision were subsequently appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the injury occurred while the claimant was entering the employment premises, thus arising out of and in the course of her employment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCompensable InjuryGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balk v. Austin Ford Logan, Inc.

Decedent was killed in an automobile accident while returning from a sales call after consuming alcoholic beverages. Her husband, the claimant, filed for workers’ compensation benefits which were denied on the grounds that the accident was solely due to intoxication. The Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence including eyewitness testimony, police investigation, and medical evidence indicating alcohol as the underlying cause and a factor in high speed. No evidence suggested wet pavement contributed to the accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision.

Automobile AccidentIntoxication DefenseCausationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaim DenialAlcohol ConsumptionSales CallDecedent BenefitsEyewitness Testimony
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ2218706 (VNO 0501260) ADJ1058308 (VNO 0482296)
Regular
Apr 19, 2010

DONNA DeRUSSY vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, TRAVELER'S INSURANCE, SAFETY NATIONAL, FRONTIER INSURANCE

This case concerns appeals from a workers' compensation judge's decision regarding liability for cumulative trauma injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the determination of the date of injury under Labor Code § 5412, which is crucial for assigning liability to the insurer covering the last year of exposure. The Board found the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient clarity and specific findings regarding disability and knowledge of causation. Therefore, the prior decision was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings to make clear findings consistent with established legal principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDonna DeRussyAntelope Valley Health Care SystemTravelers InsuranceSafety NationalFrontier Insurancecumulative traumadate of injuryLabor Code §5500.5Labor Code §5412
References
2
Case No. ADJ1210556 (AGO 0018589)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWIN MILLER vs. KEEBLER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decisions regarding medical mileage and penalties. The Board found the WCJ failed to properly consider statutory factors in determining a "reasonable geographic area" for the applicant's medical treatment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decisions and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision addressing all outstanding issues, including the definition of a reasonable geographic area for treatment.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical MileageReasonable Geographic AreaLabor Code Section 4600Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)WCJBoltonRamirez
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zechmann v. Canisteo Volunteer Fire Department

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding death benefits. The claimant's decedent had applied for these benefits. The Board determined that the claim was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, making the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable for the payments under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision and amended decision, holding that the Special Fund is responsible for the payment of death benefits.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesAppealsStatutory InterpretationLiabilityClaimantDecedentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Paul Smith's College

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient record support for the finding. The court upheld the Board's determination, citing claimant's testimony that he was injured while cleaning a chainsaw on employer's equipment during slack time, a common practice. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, and issues of credibility were for the Board to resolve. The decision and amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentPersonal Use of EquipmentSubstantial EvidenceCredibilityBoard DeterminationAppellate ReviewInjury during workCommon Practice
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 22,954 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