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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of D'Errico v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant, a maintenance worker for the New York City Department of Corrections, sought workers' compensation benefits for severe major depressive disorder with psychotic features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder, which he attributed to exposure to violent incidents at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding he was not exposed to greater work-related stress than similarly situated employees. Claimant appealed both the initial denial (April 20, 2007) and the subsequent denial of reconsideration/full Board review (January 23, 2008), but failed to timely perfect the appeal from the initial decision. Consequently, the court's review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Finding no abuse of discretion, as the claimant presented no new evidence or material change in conditions, and the Board had fully considered the issues, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Mental Health ClaimsDepressive DisorderPTSDPanic DisorderWorkplace StressAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTimeliness of Appeal
References
20
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estrellita A. v. Jennifer L.D.

A motion filed by the National Association of Social Workers and others, seeking permission to submit an amici curiae brief in the ongoing appeals, has been granted. The proposed brief has been accepted for filing by the court. It was noted that Judge Fahey did not participate in the deliberation or decision regarding this motion.

Amici CuriaeMotion GrantedAppealsBrief FilingJudicial Non-ParticipationLeave to FileAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1994

Wilbur O. v. Christina P.

This case involves appeals from Family Court orders granting Wilbur O. sole legal custody of his children, William and Jessica O., and adjudicating them as neglected by their mother, Christina P., and stepfather, Allan P. Following their divorce, Christina P. and Allan P., active Jehovah\'s Witnesses, raised the children and began discarding items from Wilbur\'s visits, believing them to be demon-possessed. Christina P. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and experienced flashbacks of alleged satanic ritualistic abuse, eventually implicating Wilbur. The parents unilaterally terminated Wilbur\'s visitation, leading to the children\'s severe depression. The children, influenced by their parents, began recounting detailed, uncorroborated "memories" of satanic abuse by Wilbur. After intervention by the Department of Social Services (DSS), the children recanted their allegations, attributing them to suggestions from Christina P. and Allan P. A court-ordered psychological report diagnosed Christina P. with a possible psychotic disorder and described a "Folie á Deux" shared delusion with the children. The appeals court affirmed the Family Court\'s findings of neglect and the change of custody to Wilbur O., concluding that the children\'s mental and emotional health was impaired by Christina P. and Allan P.\'s conduct.

Child Custody DisputeChild NeglectParental AlienationFalse Allegations of AbuseSatanic Ritual Abuse AllegationsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Shared Delusion (Folie á Deux)Family Court ActAppellate DecisionPsychological Evaluation
References
3
Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426)
Significant
Apr 14, 2009

Lawrence Weiner, Applicant vs Ralphs Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, allows the submission of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional issues arising from the legislative repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, which pertains to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

VRMALabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationrepealstatutory rightvested rightsghost statutessavings clauseen bancamicus briefs
References
18
Case No. ADJ347040
En Banc
Apr 14, 2009

LAWRENCE WEINER vs. RALPHS COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the legal issues presented by the defendant's petition, specifically concerning the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, and has ordered the allowance of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional questions.

Amicus briefsEn banc decisionVocational rehabilitationVRMARepeal of statuteLabor Code section 139.5JurisdictionRetroactive benefitsFindings and AwardWCJ
References
18
Case No. ADJ1177048
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant to allow for a more thorough study of the issues raised and to permit the filing of amicus curiae briefs by interested parties.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 ScheduleReconsiderationAmicus Curiae BriefsThreshold IssueFinal OrderEn Banc DecisionRebuttalPermanent Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 5900
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 545 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