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

Copeland v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Plaintiff Vernon Copeland asserted claims of race discrimination and retaliation against Sears, Roebuck and Co. and its employee Margaret Lare. Copeland, an African American service technician, alleged delays in training, wage discrepancies, stand-by duty conflicts, and issues with his service truck, attributing these to racial discrimination. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the race discrimination claims, concluding Copeland failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate pretext for Sears' non-discriminatory business reasons. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding increased micro-management and disciplinary actions taken after Copeland filed internal complaints and his lawsuit. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for November 18, 1998.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal Civil ProcedurePrima Facie CasePretextAdverse Employment ActionNew York Executive LawSection 1981
References
35
Case No. ADJ3554201 (VNO 0429945) ADJ2060228 (PAS 0034618)
Regular
May 30, 2014

ROSEMARY MOSER vs. BEVERLY HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rosemary Moser's petition for reconsideration in the case against Beverly Hospital. The dismissal was based on the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition to be untimely filed, unverified, and improperly served. Therefore, the Board adopted the judge's recommendation and ordered the petition dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyUnverifiedNot Properly ServedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationIncorporated ReportPermit Self-Insured
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuthill v. United States

Plaintiff Beverly Tuthill brought an action against the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act after suffering injuries from a slip and fall on ice at the West Point Visitor's Center parking lot. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to protect the plaintiff from an open and obvious condition and lacked notice of the icy patch. The court denied the defendant's motion, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ice was indeed open and obvious and whether the defendant had constructive notice due to a potentially recurring ice problem in the area and the reasonableness of their inspection procedures. The case is to proceed to trial.

Federal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionNegligenceNew York LawOpen and Obvious HazardConstructive NoticeRecurring ProblemPremises LiabilityDuty of Care
References
17
Case No. ADJ1543782
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

Richard E. Knudsen vs. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

In this workers' compensation case, the Board denied the defendant City of Beverly Hills' reconsideration of its prior decision. The Board had overturned a judge's finding that a police officer's shoulder injury sustained while exercising in the station gym during off-duty hours was not industrial. The Board determined the injury was compensable because it was a reasonable expectancy of employment under the specific circumstances. This decision reinforces the finding that the officer's workout was a reasonable part of his employment, even during off-duty hours.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Beverly Hillspolice officerleft shoulder injuryindustrial injuryreasonable expectancyoff-duty hoursgymcompensablereconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ9099771
Regular
Apr 18, 2014

Gary Reynolds vs. Michael Thomas Connolly, Beverly Connolly

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision grants reconsideration to remove Beverly Connolly as a named employer, as she was never properly joined in the proceedings. The Board affirms the original finding that Gary Reynolds was an employee of Michael Thomas Connolly, based on Labor Code § 2750.5's conclusive presumption for work exceeding $500 when the worker lacks a valid contractor's license. The employer's arguments regarding estoppel, due process, and the UEBTF's joinder were rejected. The Board found that Reynolds was not an excluded employee under Labor Code § 3352(h) as the work was for Connolly's rental business, not his personal residence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardEmployee StatusBeverly ConnollyUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundUEBTFContractor's LicenseEstoppelLabor Code Section 2750.5
References
5
Case No. ADJ1484892 (SBR 0318885)
Regular
May 04, 2015

JOANNE CORSON vs. BEVERLY MANOR SANITARIUM, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE EXCESS CARRIER

In *Corson v. Beverly Manor Sanitarium*, the applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved. This is a preliminary step to ensure a just and reasoned decision after a thorough review. All future correspondence related to the reconsideration petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationBeverly Manor SanitariumPermissibly Self-InsuredAmerican Home Assurance Excess CarrierAIG ClaimsStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionOffice of the Commissioners
References
1
Case No. ADJ218048 (VNO 0530772) ADJ1017219 (VNO 0373730) ADJ2748924 (VNO 0373487)
Regular
Apr 20, 2018

GILBERT TORRES vs. BEVERLY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by KEENAN \u0026 ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Beverly Community Hospital. The dismissal was based on the petition being "skeletal" and failing to meet the specific pleading requirements outlined in Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852. Specifically, the petition did not detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite the record, or explain how the evidence failed to support the findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSkeletal PetitionLabor Code § 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10846Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10852Administrative Law JudgeApplicant
References
7
Case No. ADJ824062 (VNO 0395359) ADJ1729914 (VNO 0452072) ADJ385264 (VNO 0548716) ADJ4506449 (VNO 0548713)
Regular
May 11, 2016

SHARON SPRAGUE vs. BEVERLY FABRICS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BROADSPIRE, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MIKASA, SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves multiple injury claims for Sharon Sprague against Beverly Fabrics and Mikasa, primarily concerning back, hip, and fibromyalgia injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address disputes over permanent disability ratings and apportionment of injuries. The WCAB rescinded prior findings, finding insufficient evidence for permanent total disability and the exact causation of fibromyalgia. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to develop the record on fibromyalgia causation, permanent disability, and apportionment.

CIGASompo JapanReconsiderationJoint Findings Award OrdersPermanent DisabilityApportionmentFibromyalgiaScapula/Rhomboid StrainBilateral KneesAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
0
Case No. ADJ4661222 (MON 0354694)
Regular
Jul 05, 2016

LAKEISHA HICKS vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimants Beverly Hills Ambulatory Surgery Center and Beverly Hills Anesthesia. The WCJ had dismissed their liens due to non-appearance at a conference, but the lien claimants claimed they never received notice of the conference or the intent to dismiss. Crucially, the Board noted the conflict between the defendant's proof of service and the lien claimants' verified assertion of non-receipt, without any credibility determination. Therefore, the case was rescinded and returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to resolve these notice and service issues.

Lien claimantsReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNon-appearanceLien conferenceNotice of hearingNotice of intention to dismissCode of Civil Procedure section 473(b)Mistake
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barcia v. Sitkin

This corrected opinion addresses the reasonable hourly rates for attorneys Beverly Gross and David Raff for services rendered between June 1, 1979, and June 30, 1983, in a series of class action cases challenging the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's practices. Presided over by Judge Robert L. Carter, the court evaluated the attorneys' experience and prevailing market rates, referencing Supreme Court precedents like Blum v. Stenson and Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air. The decision sets David Raff's hourly rate at $185 and Beverly Gross's at $140, denying requests for additional enhancements based on exceptional quality or contingency. However, the court granted interest on unpaid interim amounts from March 5, 1985, and awarded attorneys' fees for the time spent on this fee application.

Attorneys' FeesHourly Rate DisputeCivil Rights ActUnemployment CompensationClass Action LitigationSettlement NegotiationsMarketplace RatesJudicial DiscretionFee EnhancementDelay in Payment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 69 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