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. ADJ8222803
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

TERRY LASKO vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS; AIG, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services

This case involves a petition for contribution where Entertainment Partners seeks reimbursement from Cast & Crew for benefits paid to an applicant. The original arbitrator awarded Entertainment Partners $95,565.17 but denied Cast & Crew liability for future medical care. Entertainment Partners contends the arbitrator erred by arbitrarily allocating $7,500 to an unpled specific injury and by denying them contribution for temporary disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and remanded the case for further proceedings due to the arbitrator exceeding his authority by making an unsubstantiated allocation.

Labor Code Section 5500.5ContributionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseCumulative TraumaFuture Medical CareArbitrator AuthorityTemporary DisabilitySpecific Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ8222803
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

Terry Lasko vs. Entertainment Partners, AIG, Cast & Crew, Zurich North America, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding contribution between two employers, Entertainment Partners and Cast & Crew. The WCAB modified the award, ordering Cast & Crew to contribute to future medical care for the applicant's left shoulder, finding substantial evidence of industrial injury. However, the WCAB affirmed the arbitrator's denial of Cast & Crew's contribution for temporary disability and future medical care for GERD, constipation, and high blood pressure due to insufficient evidence of industrial causation for those conditions. One commissioner dissented, arguing for Cast & Crew's contribution to future medical care for the internal conditions.

Cumulative TraumaContribution PetitionLabor Code Section 5500.5Compromise and ReleaseFuture Medical CareApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceNon-Industrial InjuryIndustrial Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ201545
Regular
Jun 30, 2015

GEORGE ZAMORA vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, CNA CLAIMS PLUS, CAST AND CREW ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by Defendant Cast & Crew concerning a workers' compensation award. The petitioner argued the Statute of Limitations barred contribution claims and sought to avoid future liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The WCJ found that contribution claims were not time-barred, citing case law that distinguishes enforcing an existing award from determining initial apportionment. Therefore, Cast & Crew's petition was denied as they were aware of their ongoing liability.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGEORGE ZAMORAENTERTAINMENT PARTNERSAMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANYCNA CLAIMS PLUSCAST AND CREW ENTERTAINMENTZURICH NORTH AMERICAPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10848
References
1
Case No. ADJ7516841
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

KAREN SHAW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Karen Shaw's claim for workers' compensation benefits after she slipped and broke her wrist and ankle while walking to a bookstore in San Francisco. The defendant, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services, Inc., argued the injury was not compensable, citing the going-and-coming rule and the bunkhouse rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Shaw's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under the commercial traveler rule. The Board determined that Shaw's walk, while on an extended business trip and on call, was a reasonable expectancy of her employment, even if considered personal activity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren ShawCast & Crew Entertainment ServicesInc.Zurich North AmericaADJ7516841San Franciscogoing and coming rulebunkhouse ruleMotion Picture Health Plan
References
11
Case No. ADJ6746759; ADJ6746764
Regular
Oct 17, 2014

JEANNE VAN PHUE vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA, administered by CNA CLAIMSPLUS, CAST & CREW, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns defendant Cast & Crew's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's award finding their insured's employee's hypertension, psychiatric injury, knee injury, and back injury, among other issues, to be related to a specific October 13, 2013 injury. The Board granted reconsideration to further review the case. After review, the Board has decided to vacate the order granting reconsideration and deny Cast & Crew's petition, adopting the arbitrator's original findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardHypertensionPsychiatric InjuryKnee ReplacementPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentSpecific Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ937190 (GOL 0101685)
Regular
Feb 25, 2010

RYDAN SHON vs. BEST PAINTING INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED OXNARD

Here's a summary of the two cases, limited to four sentences for each, suitable for a lawyer: **Rydan Shon v. Best Painting Inc.:** The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition was received significantly past the 20-day statutory period, plus the additional five days for mail service. The Board found no basis to excuse the late filing, leading to dismissal. **Armando Gonzalez v. Cast & Crew Entertainment Service, Inc.:** The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the administrative law judge erred in dismissing Zurich North America and Cast and Crew Entertainment as parties. This dismissal was made prematurely, without considering the date of injury or liability, and potentially violating due process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Findings of FactOrder of DismissalIndustrial InjuryRatable ImpairmentFurther Medical Treatment
References
0
Case No. ADJ4484214, ADJ1095231, ADJ1532047, ADJ7900801
Regular
May 17, 2017

CANA SWARTOUT vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involved multiple employers and insurance carriers for Dana Swartout's various work-related injuries sustained between 2002 and 2007. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially issued findings but granted reconsideration to study the issues, including contentions about permanent total disability and statute of limitations. Following settlement conferences, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release agreement, which the WCAB has now approved. The WCAB rescinded its prior order and approved the settlement, finding it adequate and in the applicant's best interest.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardDana SwartoutEntertainment PartnersAmerican Home AssuranceAIG Claims ServicesCast & Crew EntertainmentZurich North AmericaAmerican Casualty CompanyCNA Claims PlusPermanent Total Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crews v. County of Nassau

Raheem Crews and his son sued the County of Nassau and its officials for various torts, including false arrest and malicious prosecution, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The defendants moved to implead Crews' former counsel, Arshad Majid and his law firm, alleging negligence and seeking contribution. The court denied the motion, ruling that a criminal defense attorney owes no duty of care to prosecutors, thus precluding a negligence claim. Additionally, the court found that contribution claims are not available for Section 1983 actions. For the pendent state law claims, the court concluded that even if a contribution claim could theoretically exist, impleading Majid would cause undue delay, confuse the issues, and prejudice the plaintiffs.

Impleader MotionNegligence ClaimContribution ClaimSection 1983State Law Tort ClaimsMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestUnlawful ImprisonmentAbuse of ProcessLegal Malpractice
References
85
Case No. ADJ2678977 (VNO 0516619) ADJ2789939 (VNO 0516618)
Regular
Jul 26, 2017

THOMAS BELLISSIMO vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AIG

This case involves two insurers, Zurich and AIG, disputing liability for a worker's cumulative trauma injury. The Arbitrator initially set the liability period as July 4, 2004, to July 3, 2005, and apportioned fault based on days worked. Both insurers sought reconsideration, with AIG challenging the date of injury and allocation method, and Zurich arguing for apportionment based on exposure arduousness. The Board affirmed the Arbitrator's pro rata allocation based on days worked, but amended the liability period to June 28, 2004, to June 28, 2005, based on the last date of injurious exposure.

Labor Code section 5500.5cumulative trauma injuryliability periodapportionmentpro ratadate of injuryLabor Code section 5412disabilityinjurious exposuresuccessive employers
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. J. Crew Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Soto, an employee of a commercial cleaning company, suffered injuries after falling from a ladder while dusting a display shelf at a J. Crew store. He sued J. Crew and The Mercer I L.L.C. under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendants, classifying Soto's task as routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing criteria to differentiate routine cleaning from covered activities and concluding that dusting a display shelf was not within the statute's protective scope. The decision clarifies the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding elevation-related risks in commercial cleaning.

Labor LawElevation RiskRoutine MaintenanceCommercial CleaningPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLadder FallWorkplace Safety
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 229 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