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. 2019-04-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2020

West, Amber v. The Balanced Canine Training Academy

Amber West, an employee of The Balanced Canine Training Academy (BCTA), sought workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury sustained when two large dogs knocked her over a doghouse at work. She also requested psychiatric care and additional temporary disability benefits, alleging an inaccurate average weekly wage calculation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Cookeville, presided over by Judge Robert Durham, held an expedited hearing. The Court found Ms. West likely to prove her low-back injury primarily arose out of and in the course of her employment, supported by medical evidence from neurosurgeon Joseph Jestus. However, her requests for psychiatric care were denied due to the lack of an order from an authorized physician. Furthermore, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary disability benefits, determining her average weekly wage based on the employer's account and documented evidence, which was lower than Ms. West claimed but still within the minimum compensation rate she had already received.

Workers' CompensationLow-Back InjurySciaticaPsychiatric CareAverage Weekly Wage DisputeExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsDog AttackMedical TreatmentCausation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged that the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan implemented by JPMorgan Chase violated ERISA by being age discriminatory and by failing to provide adequate notice of reduced benefit accruals after converting to a cash balance plan. Defendants moved to dismiss all remaining counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the age discrimination claim (Count I) and the notice claims (Counts IV-VI), interpreting ERISA's "rate of benefit accrual" to refer to the employee's retirement benefit, which is detrimentally affected for older workers in cash balance plans. The court found that the plan conversion could lead to a significant reduction in benefit accrual, requiring notice. Counts II and III, related to back-loading and forfeiture claims, were dismissed as they had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

ERISAAge DiscriminationCash Balance PlansDefined Benefit PlansDefined Contribution PlansBenefit AccrualStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNotice RequirementsSummary Plan Description
References
23
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04454 [219 AD3d 22]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2023

Matter of Afra

Attorney Sam Afra faced four charges of professional misconduct, primarily involving escrow-related issues. The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District filed a petition alleging misappropriation of funds, maintenance of negative escrow account balances, and payment of personal/business expenses from the escrow account. A Special Referee sustained all four charges. The Court considered mitigating factors like personal hardships and remedial actions, but also aggravating factors such as repeated negative balances and unauthorized withdrawals. Ultimately, the Court ordered Sam Afra's suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months, commencing September 29, 2023.

Professional MisconductEscrow Account ViolationsMisappropriation of FundsAttorney SuspensionFiduciary DutyRules of Professional ConductDisciplinary ActionGrievance CommitteeEthical ViolationFinancial Mismanagement
References
1
Case No. ADJ8751227
Regular
Nov 16, 2015

GLORIA ACOSTA vs. BALANCE STAFFING SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Balance Staffing Services. The petitioner voluntarily withdrew their petition. The WCAB noted that even if not withdrawn, the petition would have been dismissed as untimely and lacking in substance. Furthermore, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelySkeletalWCJ's ReportBalance Staffing ServicesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPatriot Risk ServicesULLICO Casualty Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ7217859, ADJ7544106
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

YOLANDA MARTINEZ vs. MASS PRECISION, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, SCI @ BALANCE STAFFING SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves applicant Yolanda Martinez claiming industrial injuries (lumbar spine, right shoulder, psyche) from her employment at Mass Precision. Defendant Zurich North America, insurer for SCI @ Balance Staffing Service, contested liability for the psyche injury, arguing applicant's employment by SCI was less than the six-month statutory minimum. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of joint and several liability, holding that prior employment at the same worksite with dual employers counts towards the six-month requirement for psyche injury claims. This decision was based on the principle that the six-month rule aims to prevent claims from routine stress in new employment, a purpose not served when an employee has a longer-term relationship with the worksite.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma InjuryApportionmentPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment RequirementDual EmploymentGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
3
Case No. ADJ6864354
Regular
Mar 29, 2017

AGUSTIN MORENO vs. ARANDA'S WOODCRAFT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding a previous order that dismissed his case for lack of prosecution. The WCAB found that the applicant would suffer substantial prejudice if the dismissal stood, as he had sustained a significant admitted industrial injury requiring surgery. Balancing the equities, the WCAB determined that the potential harm to the applicant outweighed any hardship to the defendant in allowing the case to proceed on its merits. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseLack of ProsecutionWCJLabor CodeSubstantial JusticeApplication for Adjudication of ClaimDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition to Dismiss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stena Line (U.K.) Ltd. v. Sea Containers Ltd.

This action involves a dispute between Stena Line (U.K.) Limited (Stena) and Sea Containers Ltd. along with its subsidiary Ferry and Port Holdings Limited (Holdings) concerning a post-closing adjustment to the purchase price of a ferry business. Stena seeks to compel arbitration over a balance sheet dated March 31, 1990, which is crucial for calculating the adjustment. Holdings does not oppose arbitration but seeks to limit its scope, arguing that Stena waived its right to challenge an earlier balance sheet from December 31, 1989. The court grants Stena's petition to compel arbitration regarding the March 31 balance sheet, allowing the arbitrator to examine the procedures of the December balance sheet but restricting any alteration of its findings without the parties' consent. The arbitrator is tasked with determining whether the March balance sheet aligns with the agreement, considering UK GAAP standards, consistency, and a true and fair view of the business.

ArbitrationStock Purchase AgreementBalance Sheet DisputePost-Closing AdjustmentUK GAAPContract InterpretationWaiverScope of ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActBusiness Sale
References
13
Case No. ADJ1998767 (SRO 133847) ADJ626023 (SRO 139879)
Regular
2020-12-00

KAREN FAVOR vs. PETALUMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves two workers' compensation claims for low back injuries. The defendant sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision, specifically regarding their entitlement to credit for overpaid temporary disability indemnity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and allowed the defendant an additional credit of $5,161.00 for temporary disability paid beyond the statutory limit. The Board found this credit appropriate under Labor Code section 4909, balancing the employer's fault in the overpayment against the lack of hardship to the applicant.

Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLow BackCustodianStatute of LimitationsPermanent DisabilityApportionmentFuture Medical TreatmentTemporary Disability Indemnity
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 473 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