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. ADJ10483272
Regular
Mar 08, 2018

ADRIAN FRIAS vs. AVANTI CAFE, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied defendant Avanti Cafe's petitions for reconsideration. The WCAB reviewed the defendant's amended petitions, but found no substantial new grounds for appeal. While the WCAB adopted the workers' compensation judge's report, they specifically excluded the portion addressing the unsigned proof of service, while cautioning the defendant about future compliance. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the prior decision and denied reconsideration.

Petitions for ReconsiderationAmended PetitionsProof of ServiceAppeals Board Rule 10505Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDenying ReconsiderationIncorporated ReportComplianceEndorsed StatementSigned Proof of Service
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mi-Kyung Cho v. Young Bin Café

The plaintiff, Mi-Kyung Cho, a hostess at Young Bin Café in Flushing, New York, sued her employers, Young Bin Café and Gabin, following a physical assault by a customer in 2008. She alleged negligence, retaliatory discharge under New York and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relations and contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It found that her complaints (a police report and a request for workers' compensation) were not 'protected activity' under the relevant human rights laws, her tortious interference claims lacked merit due to a lack of identified relationships/contracts, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious InterferenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge DecisionEmployment Discrimination
References
102
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bittencourt v. Ferrara Bakery & Café Inc.

Plaintiff Jucialaine Bittencourt filed an action against Ferrara Bakery & Café, Inc. and related parties, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning unpaid minimum wages and tip credit notice failures. She sought conditional collective action certification. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted the motion in part, specifically certifying a collective action for waitstaff. The decision was based on a sufficient factual showing, including affidavits from Bittencourt and another waiter, Czako Zsolt, detailing common unlawful wage policies. However, the motion was denied for other employee categories due to insufficient factual detail. The court also provided directives for the notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, including the notice period and language modifications.

FLSANYLLWage ViolationCollective ActionConditional CertificationMinimum WageTip CreditWaitstaffRestaurant IndustryEmployment Law
References
50
Case No. ADJ8791704
Regular
Feb 24, 2015

LUIS ANGUIANO vs. AVANTI ROOFING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant, Luis Anguiano, and defendants Avanti Roofing, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order dismissing the applicant's Petition for Removal. The dismissal is based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition challenging a prior decision. Consequently, the WCAB formally dismisses the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissedWithdrawnADJ8791704Avanti RoofingState Compensation Insurance FundOxnard District OfficeDeputyConcur
References
0
Case No. ADJ7106903
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

DAVID CONNOR vs. RESTAURANTS TO YOU/CAFÉ RUNNER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This order transfers venue for Case No. ADJ7106903, involving David Connor and Restaurants To You/Café Runner, from the San Luis Obispo District Office to the Santa Barbara Satellite Office. The transfer is necessitated by both parties exercising their challenges under Appeals Board Rule 10453, leaving no available judges in San Luis Obispo. The Presiding Judge in Santa Barbara will schedule the matter for trial upon receipt.

Venue transferAppeals Board rule 10453Challenge of judgePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeSanta Barbara Satellite OfficeSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSetting for trialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRestaurants to YouCafe Runner
References
1
Case No. ADJ7340845
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

MARIA INIGUEZ vs. PERKOS CAFÉ AND GRILL, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an applicant's claim. The applicant, Maria Iniguez, injured herself while working as a cook at Perkos Café and Grill. The Board upheld the judge's finding that Iniguez reported her injury to Maria Vargas, who was deemed a supervisor under Labor Code § 3600(a)(10), despite the employer's claims otherwise. The decision emphasized giving great weight to the judge's credibility findings regarding the witnesses.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings of Fact and Ordershift supervisorreporting injuryL.C. §3600(a)(10)supervisory personperson in charge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hard Rock Cafe International, (USA), Inc. v. Hard Rock Hotel Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff Hard Rock Café International (USA), Inc. (HRCI), owner of 'Hard Rock' trademarks, sued Hard Rock Defendants and Equity Holder Defendants for breach of contract, trademark dilution, infringement, and unfair competition. The Hard Rock Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration. Claims against most Equity Holder Defendants were dismissed, except for Morgans Management. The motion to compel arbitration for issues related to the 'Rehab' TV show and the Tulsa and Albuquerque properties was granted, but a motion to stay the action pending arbitration was denied. The court also granted HRCI's motion to dismiss certain breach of contract counterclaims and the tortious interference counterclaim, while denying dismissal for other breach of contract counterclaims and the good faith and fair dealing counterclaim.

Trademark DisputeLanham ActUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractMotion to DismissArbitrationLicensing AgreementJoint TortfeasorGood Faith and Fair DealingTortious Interference
References
72
Case No. ADJ11389970
Regular
Mar 10, 2020

LESBIA GARCIA vs. C&C FOOD ENTERPRISES, LP, CAFE CLEANING COMPANY, INC., DANIEL MENDOZA, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

This case involved an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained while providing cleaning services. The defendant, C&C Food Enterprises, dba Whisper Lounge, petitioned for reconsideration of the initial finding that the applicant was jointly employed by them, Café Cleaning Company, and Daniel Mendoza. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's finding of joint employment. The Board found that the defendant retained sufficient control over the applicant's work and that various factors indicated an employment relationship, despite the lack of direct payment or belief in an employer-employee relationship.

JOINT EMPLOYMENTSPECIAL EMPLOYEEEMPLOYEE STATUSINDEPENDENT CONTRACTORBORELLO FACTORSCONTROL TESTMUTUAL BENEFITADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEFINDINGS AND ORDERPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
7
Case No. ADJ2136789 (MON 0357209)
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

ROBERT FLORES vs. GARNET PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND SECURITY, INC., JOSEPH'S CAFE, INC., PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and found the applicant was solely employed by Garnet Protective Services, not Joseph's Cafe. The Board further determined the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury on July 12, 2007. The majority concluded the applicant's commute to an extra shift did not constitute a special mission and fell under the "going and coming" rule. A dissenting commissioner argued the extra shift constituted a special mission, making the injury compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGarnet Protective ServicesJoseph's CafePennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance CompanyUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's DecisionEmployee StatusDual EmploymentSpecial Employer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renteria v. Santino's Café

Claimant, a chef, suffered a work-related back injury. Five months later, while in Florida, his pain worsened, leading to an emergency room visit where a report noted he 'twisted his back again.' His employer and its carrier argued this constituted a new, unrelated injury and that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined there was no new accident and that the claimant remained attached to the workforce. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the claimant's job search efforts within medical restrictions and that the worsened pain was an exacerbation of an existing injury.

Back InjuryVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketJob SearchExacerbation of InjuryMedical Report DiscrepancyWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaimant TestimonyEmployer Liability
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 45 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