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

Hunter v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Chief Financial Officer Judy Hunter and other current or retired employees of Acme Building Brands, Inc. (Acme), sued Acme and its parent company, Berkshire, Hathaway, Inc. (Berkshire). They alleged that Berkshire coerced Acme into reducing 401(k) matching contributions and implementing a pension plan freeze, which they claimed violated Section 5.7 of a merger agreement and constituted breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the merger agreement did not clearly grant unalterable lifetime benefits and that Acme acted as a plan settlor, not a fiduciary. The Court, citing legal precedents, determined that the agreement's language was ambiguous regarding benefit duration and that Acme did not act in a fiduciary capacity when amending the plans. Additionally, the Court found the plaintiffs' alternative breach-of-contract claim to be preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted, and all Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

ERISAMotion to DismissEmployee BenefitsPension Plan401k PlanMerger AgreementFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPlan AmendmentVesting Benefits
References
25
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02077 [215 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2023

Breakaway Courier Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of a complaint filed by Breakaway Courier Corporation. The motion court had dismissed the complaint based on a forum selection clause in the Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA), which required disputes to be litigated in Nebraska. Although the RPA initially stipulated arbitration in the British Virgin Islands, a consent order with the New York State Department of Financial Services prevented its enforcement for New York entities. Consequently, a broad forum selection clause designating Nebraska courts for unresolved matters became controlling, leading to the dismissal of all claims against the Applied Defendants. The court also noted that many of the plaintiff's claims directly addressed the RPA, and the central allegation was that the workers' compensation policies illegally mandated the RPA.

Forum Selection ClauseReinsurance Participation AgreementMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation PoliciesNew York State Department of Financial ServicesArbitration ClauseNebraska LawContract DisputeJurisdiction
References
2
Case No. ADJ2033145 (LAO 0877321) ADJ1126357 (LAO 0877370)
Regular
Jun 06, 2012

PABLO RAMIREZ vs. BAU FURNITURE MANUFACTURING, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved applicant Pablo Ramirez and defendants Bau Furniture Manufacturing and Berkshire Hathaway. The Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The amended decision affirmed the original ruling but dismissed a remaining lien balance for Paramount Physicians Medical Group with prejudice. This modification specifically addressed a lien claim previously asserted.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPABLO RAMIREZBAU FURNITURE MANUFACTURINGBERKSHIRE HATHAWAYADJ2033145ADJ1126357OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ11900759
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

Luis Hernandez vs. Cesar Chavez Foundation, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged an earlier decision that found a contested claim existed when cost petitioner DocCentral provided subpoena services. The Board affirmed its previous finding, clarifying that a claim becomes contested upon an employer's delay notice, thus allowing discovery. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that a denial was required for a contested claim, citing prior en banc decisions to support its position on discovery during delay periods.

Contested claimLabor Code § 4620(b)8 CCR § 9793(b)Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order DenyingDocCentralsubpoena servicesdelay noticemedical-legal expenseAdjudication of Claim
References
6
Case No. ADJ2154380
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

SPENCER DAVIS vs. CLARK & SULLIVAN, INC., LWP CLAIMS SACRAMENTO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

In this case, the defendant sought to disqualify a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their alleged unavailability for deposition within 120 days as required by Administrative Director Rule 35.5(f). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found that Rule 31.5, which allows for replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board determined the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, especially after rescheduling the deposition themselves.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorDeposition UnavailabilityAdministrative Director RuleMandatory RegulationPrejudice and HarmReplacement PanelWCJ OrderUpper Extremities InjuryPsyche Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ2154380 (SAC 0363541)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

Spencer Davis vs. Clark & Sullivan, Inc., LWP Claims Sacramento, Berkshire Hathaway San Francisco, Berkshire Hathaway Pasadena

The defendant sought to disqualify the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their unavailability for deposition within the regulatory 120-day timeframe. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for removal, affirming the lower order. The WCAB found that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5, concerning replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board found no demonstrable prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the defendant's own rescheduling of the deposition.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME UnavailabilityDeposition SchedulingAdministrative Director RulesAD Rule 35.5(f)AD Rule 31.5(a)(5)AD Rule 33PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. ADJ16007451
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

MINA RADJABI vs. CENTURY COMMUNITIES, INC./INSPIRE HOME LOAN; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The applicant, Mina Radjabi, alleged a cumulative trauma injury to multiple body parts from July 2019 to February 2022 while employed by Century Communities, Inc./Inspire Home Loan. The case initially settled by Compromise and Release in March 2023, with the defendant maintaining a denial of injury AOE/COE. A lien claimant, Woodland Psyche Center, represented by PureMD Group Lomita, filed a petition for reconsideration after its lien for treatment was denied by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied the lien because Woodland Psyche Center failed to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and its medical reports did not comply with regulatory requirements for proving a contested claim. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and the WCJ's report, adopted the WCJ's findings and denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the lien claimant did not establish causation or due process violations, and that the treatment provided was outside the employer's Medical Provider Network.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909TimelinessTransmission Date60-Day RuleNotice of TransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Report and RecommendationLien Claimant
References
10
Case No. 2017-06-2295
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2018

Hathaway, Ann v. Delaware North Companies, Sportservice

Ann Hathaway sustained a right shoulder injury while working for Delaware North in February 2015, receiving initial treatment from Dr. Calvin Dyer who diagnosed impingement and bursitis and released her to full duty. Despite continued pain, Hathaway did not seek further treatment until April 2017, when an MRI revealed a torn rotator cuff, leading to surgery paid for by her private insurance. Delaware North declined to cover the surgery, asserting the statute of limitations had expired, as their last voluntary medical payment was in December 2015, and Hathaway filed her petition in December 2017. The Court denied her request for medical and temporary disability benefits, ruling that neither her lack of knowledge regarding the statute of limitations nor the discovery rule served to extend the claim-filing deadline for her acute injury. Consequently, the Court determined she was unlikely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Statute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRotator CuffExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsDiscovery RuleVoluntary PaymentsTimeliness
References
7
Case No. 2019-06-2108
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2020

Hathaway, Terika v. Davidson Transit Organization

Terika Hathaway, a bus driver, filed a claim for mental injury following a verbal altercation with her supervisor. She alleged the incident caused severe mental stress, depression, anxiety, and PTSD-like symptoms, supported by a letter from her primary care physician, Dr. Richard Meyer. Davidson Transit Organization denied the claim, arguing the event did not meet statutory criteria for a compensable mental injury and presenting conflicting eyewitness accounts. The Court denied Ms. Hathaway's claim, finding the altercation did not constitute a 'work related event resulting in a sudden or unusual stimulus' as required by Tennessee law, and that a threat of job loss was not compensable as a physical injury. The Court concluded she failed to meet her burden of proof.

Mental Injury ClaimVerbal AltercationSupervisor-Employee DisputeSudden or Unusual StimulusEmotional DistressDepression and AnxietyPTSD SymptomsBurden of ProofExpedited HearingDecision on the Record
References
4
Case No. ADJ6834877
Regular
Dec 22, 2014

EUSTELIO TELLEZ vs. BORDIERS NURSERY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by Liening Edge, Inc. on behalf of lien claimant Metrics Medical Group. The petition was denied on the merits due to Liening Edge and its "Director of Operations" lacking standing as they were not the official representative of record for Metrics Medical Group. Although the verification technically complied with Labor Code section 5902, the Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which detailed the lien claimant's failure to appear at scheduled hearings and their subsequent improper petition. Therefore, reconsideration was denied and the original decision imposing costs and sanctions was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStandingRepresentative of RecordMetrics Medical GroupLiening EdgeMedical Lien ManagementLabor Code Section 5902Findings and Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 208 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