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
Dec 08, 1972

Claim of Marciniak v. Berlitz School of Languages

The claimant, a French teacher, was injured on his way home after teaching a class at an alternate location (Hospital for Special Surgery) following his regular shift at the employer's main school. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied his claim, but the court reversed this decision. The court reasoned that the claimant, when traveling to and from the remote teaching assignment, was acting as an 'outside worker.' Citing established precedents, the court concluded that the homeward journey from such a special work assignment falls within the course of employment. Therefore, the Board's decision was reversed, and the case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Worker's CompensationOutside EmployeeCourse of EmploymentTravel InjuryDual Employment LocationAppealRemittalSpecial Errand RuleWork-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Soo Tsui

The case involves an appeal from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board regarding Language Services Associates, Inc.'s (LSA) liability for unemployment insurance contributions. A claimant, a Cantonese and Mandarin interpreter, filed for benefits after ceasing work for LSA. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, not an independent contractor, making LSA liable. LSA appealed, but an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Department's determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on LSA's control over assignments, payment practices, and performance monitoring. The court also upheld LSA's liability for similarly situated individuals and found no conflict with Department of Labor guidelines for the translating and interpreting industry.

Employment StatusIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnemployment Insurance ContributionsInterpretersTranslation ServicesDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceWorker Classification
References
11
Case No. ADJ10199969
Regular
Jun 13, 2017

RAYMUNDO FERNANDEZ vs. MBM CORP., ACE AMERICAN, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition to reconsider an approved Compromise and Release (C&R). The applicant claimed he did not understand that the settlement included waiving his Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim. The Board found that it was unclear if the parties intended to resolve the 132a claim, especially given the boilerplate language in Addendum B and the lack of inquiry into the applicant's understanding. Consequently, the Board rescinded the approval order and returned the matter to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing on the circumstances surrounding the C&R's execution.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationSet Aside OrderGood CauseRescind OrderWalk-through BasisAddendum BBoilerplate Language
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Colvin

Plaintiff Donna Lewis sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The District Court identified multiple errors made by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), specifically in evaluating medical evidence and the plaintiff's credibility. The ALJ improperly weighed reports from a non-examining consultant and a consultative examiner, and used boilerplate language in assessing Lewis's subjective complaints without sufficient specificity. The court concluded that these deficiencies provided a reasonable basis to doubt whether the appropriate legal standards were applied. Consequently, Lewis's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the Commissioner's decision was vacated, and the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActALJ ErrorResidual Functional CapacityAppeals CouncilPsychiatric Review TechniqueMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMental Impairments
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 1997

In re the Claim of Sobhani

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified the claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The claimant, a hair stylist, was discharged for using profane and insubordinate language towards her employer in the presence of co-workers and clients. Evidence showed the claimant had previously directed similar language at her employer and had been warned about potential termination for such conduct. The Board ruled that these actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that insubordinate and disrespectful language towards an employer can be grounds for disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceBenefitsDisqualificationMisconductTerminationInsubordinationProfane LanguageAppealAffirmationWorkplace Conduct
References
1
Case No. ADJ3824996
Regular
Feb 06, 2015

OLIVIA AGUILAR vs. APPAREL VENTURES, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal to reverse an order denying their petition for dismissal. The denial was based on the defendant's notice letter to the applicant not strictly adhering to the language required by WCAB Rule 10582. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition, finding the notice defective. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the minor language variation should not prevent dismissal, especially given the lack of applicant response.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10582DismissalNotice letterGood reasonAttorney timeAdministrative law judgeDissenting opinionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardVariance
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 1994

In re the Claim of Cooke-Johnson

The claimant, a claims analyst, was terminated from employment due to misconduct. After receiving a warning for using vulgar language with a co-worker, the claimant again used inappropriate language at work and subsequently walked out of a meeting with her supervisor to discuss the incident. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that this conduct constituted misconduct, disqualifying the claimant from unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision and affirmed the ruling.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTermination of EmploymentVulgar LanguageInsubordinationAppeal Board DecisionClaims Analyst
References
0
Case No. ADJ7745775
Regular
Jun 16, 2015

ENRIQUE CASTANEDA vs. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the February 4, 2014 Findings of Fact and awarded further medical treatment for applicant Enrique Castaneda against Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. The WCAB also imposed sanctions of $500.00 against defense counsel Peter R. Nelson and his firm, jointly and severally, for intemperate language used during advocacy. Defense counsel's objection and apology were considered, leading to a reduced sanction amount. The sanctions were justified by the board's need to address the counsel's inappropriate language, which diverted resources.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsIntemperate languageHeat of advocacyDefense counselPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactFurther medical treatmentAward
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1998

In re the Claim of Kim

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct involved using offensive language towards a supervisor and kicking the supervisor's office door after being questioned about missing a meeting. The Board credited a co-worker's eyewitness testimony over the claimant's account, a finding upheld by the court as within the Board's authority to resolve credibility issues. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, affirming that disrespectful conduct towards a supervisor, including abusive behavior or vulgar language, constitutes disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductDisqualificationOffensive LanguageWorkplace ConductCredibility DeterminationSupervisory DisrespectAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawEmployment Termination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Storch v. Syracuse University

Plaintiffs Mark and Jenny Storch sued Syracuse University and Professor Douglas Biklen after their autistic daughter, Jenny, allegedly accused her father of sexual abuse through "facilitated communication." A Family Court had previously rejected this communication method as unreliable, leading to the withdrawal of abuse charges against Mark Storch. The state court action alleged fraud and violations of Education Law regarding speech-language pathology. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Biklen's statements were opinions on an evolving, controversial theory, not fraudulent misrepresentations, and that facilitated communication does not fall under the practice of speech-language pathology as defined by law. Consequently, the plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed.

Facilitated CommunicationAutism CommunicationChild Abuse AllegationsSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsEducation LawSpeech-Language PathologyScientific ControversyExpert TestimonyAcademic Liability
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 330 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