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
Aug 04, 2004

Claim of Wald v. Avalon Partners, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant's decedent, a stockbroker, and Avalon Partners, Inc. The decedent perished in the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, and his spouse filed for death benefits. Initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge who deemed the decedent an independent contractor, the Board reversed this finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence. Factors considered included Avalon's right to control decedent's work, payment through payroll with tax deductions and W-2 forms, and the right to discharge.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceDeath Benefits9/11 AttacksStockbrokerPayrollW-2Right to Control
References
4
Case No. ADJ10588071, ADJ9823909
Regular
Feb 02, 2023

LILLIAN LONA vs. THE DISNEYLAND RESORT, DISNEY ANAHEIM

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: Applicant Lillian Lona sought an extension for her Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher, which expired March 18, 2021, due to COVID-19 restrictions. She argued the pandemic created a legal impossibility preventing her from utilizing the voucher for computer training. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that the unprecedented pandemic circumstances indeed created a legal impossibility excusing timely compliance with the statutory two-year voucher limit. Consequently, the WCAB granted Lona an additional 15 months from the Opinion's service date to use her SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherLabor Code section 4658.7(f)Executive Order N-33-20COVID-19 pandemicstay-at-home orderlegal impossibilitytollingvocational retrainingcomputer training
References
10
Case No. SDO 0336073
Regular
May 19, 2008

JACK T. GOSLIN vs. CITY OF AVALON

In *Goslin v. City of Avalon*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a decision filed March 4, 2008. The WCAB determined that reconsideration was necessary to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues and ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future filings in this matter are to be directed to the WCAB's Reconsideration Unit in San Francisco.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesPermissibly Self-InsuredSDO 0336073Reconsideration UnitSan Francisco District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Breland-Starling v. Disney Publishing Worldwide

Linda Prather filed a lawsuit against her employer, Disney Publishing Worldwide, and two employees, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York state and city laws. She claimed she was not promoted to a vice-president position due to discrimination and that defendants retaliated against her after she filed the suit by diminishing her duties and giving her a negative performance review. Prather also asserted a claim for a racially hostile work environment. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Prather failed to establish a prima facie case for her claims and did not provide sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination or a hostile work environment. Furthermore, the Court noted Prather's failure to utilize DPW's anti-discrimination procedures.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Failure to PromoteRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawProtected ActivityAdverse Employment Action
References
20
Case No. ADJ7957957
Regular
Jan 18, 2023

TERESA LAZCANO vs. WALT DISNEY TRAVEL COMPANY, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED

This case involves an applicant claiming new and further disability against Walt Disney Travel Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a prior award and modified it, largely agreeing with the WCJ's findings. The WCAB affirmed the applicant's permanent total disability but adjusted the temporary disability award to comply with the five-year jurisdictional limit and clarified the retroactive start date for permanent disability benefits. The WCAB also addressed the defendant's contentions regarding record development and the inclusion of specific body parts in the award, finding the record sufficient and the body part inclusion justified by the medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsycheCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineBilateral Upper ExtremitiesLeft Lower Extremity
References
14
Case No. ADJ1476185 (MON 0334369) ADJ3547558 (VNO 0539804)
Regular
Aug 26, 2014

NAMES ETTER vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, 20TH CENTURY FOX, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, CNA, AVALON/DISNEY

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by the applicant, James Etter. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning presented in the administrative law judge's report recommending dismissal. Therefore, the WCAB's order effectively denies further review of the case at this stage.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedZurich North AmericaGallagher Bassett ServicesEntertainment PartnersAvalon/DisneyCast & Crew Entertainment Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anilao v. Spota

Plaintiffs, including nurses and an attorney, initiated this federal action against County defendants (District Attorney Spota, DA's Office, Lato, County of Suffolk) and Sentosa defendants (Sentosa Care, Avalon, Prompt, Luyun, Philipson), alleging constitutional rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims stemmed from an employment dispute where the nurse plaintiffs resigned en masse from Avalon, leading to complaints by Sentosa defendants to authorities and a Grand Jury indictment against the plaintiffs, which was later enjoined by the Appellate Division. The Court granted summary judgment for the County defendants, finding no evidence of constitutional violations in the investigative phase and that they were entitled to absolute immunity for Grand Jury-related conduct. However, the Court denied the Sentosa defendants' motion for summary judgment on malicious prosecution and false arrest claims, citing material issues of fact regarding their role as state actors, their initiation of the criminal proceedings, and the presence of probable cause.

Section 1983Malicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestState ActorQualified ImmunityAbsolute ImmunitySummary JudgmentGrand Jury IndictmentProbable CauseEmployment Dispute
References
83
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31104(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2008

McGarry v. CVP 1 LLC

Plaintiff Patrick McGarry, Sr. sustained injuries when a cinder block staircase, providing access between work levels, skidded from beneath him. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against CVP and Avalon Bay, acknowledging the staircase as a functional equivalent of a ladder. While the plaintiff's motion for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was initially denied and defendants' cross-motion for dismissal granted, the appellate court modified this. The appellate court denied summary judgment to defendants CVP and Avalon Bay on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and granted it to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants failed to prove the inapplicability of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (f). Furthermore, the court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim, as the evidence showed that the nonparty employer Bovis, not the owner or general contractor, exercised supervisory control over the work site and the construction methods leading to the temporary staircase.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation HazardUnsecured StaircaseIndustrial CodeSupervisory ControlPersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionNew York Labor Law
References
11
Case No. ADJ1610169 (ANA 0403916)
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

MARIA ORTEGA vs. USNEYLAND RESORTS; DISNEY

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by lien claimants challenging the disallowance of their medical liens. The initial administrative law judge disallowed the liens, finding a referral for epidural injections was not supported by evidence. Specifically, the judge noted a report by Dr. Ross, which in turn cited Dr. Trotter's opinion that post-permanent and stationary treatment, including injections, was not appropriate or necessary. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationDisallowed Lien ClaimsCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryHousekeeperBack InjuryAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ7399178
Regular
Nov 09, 2011

PHILIP JOHNSON vs. DISNEY COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case concerns a clerical error in a workers' compensation award where the applicant's attorney fee of $1,155.81 was omitted. The applicant sought reconsideration of the original award, arguing the fee was agreed upon in the Stipulations with Request for Award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, acknowledging the omission as a clerical error. The Board amended the original award to include the agreed-upon attorney's fee, affirming the rest of the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7399178Philip JohnsonDisney CompanyLiberty MutualOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for Awardattorney's feeclerical errorToccalino v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 20 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