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

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. ADJ3482987 (VNO 0361935) ADJ4225713 (VNO 0387387)
Regular
Dec 24, 2012

ELIZABETH ARGUELLES vs. APPLE ONE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision affirmed a finding that the Community Development Commission (CDC) is jointly and severally liable as a special employer for the applicant's injuries. The CDC's self-insurance was deemed "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1, precluding liability for CIGA. The Board found the CDC waived statute of limitations and procedural joinder defenses due to a four-year delay in raising them. Consequently, the CDC remains responsible for providing workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAApple One ServicesCommunity Development CommissionCDCPermissibly Self-InsuredCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryOther Insurance
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1994

Cruz v. Latin News Impacto Newspaper

The case involves an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning causes of action for libel and Civil Rights Law violations. The defendant, Latin News Impacto, a Spanish-language newspaper, published an article with the plaintiff's picture, describing her as having AIDS. At the time of publication, the plaintiff was HIV-positive and seriously ill with AIDS-related conditions, but did not formally meet the then-current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) definition of AIDS, although a new definition, effective weeks later, would have included her. The IAS Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact and that the article was of private concern. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment for the defendant, ruling that even if the statement about AIDS was not literally true at publication, the defendant did not act with gross irresponsibility given the plaintiff's undisputed AIDS-related illnesses and the imminent CDC definition change. Furthermore, the court found no unauthorized advertising use of the photo under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, as the article was on a matter of public interest and not an advertisement in disguise. A separate trespass cause of action was not appealed and remains viable.

LibelDefamationCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentAIDS/HIV Status DisclosurePublic Concern DoctrineGross Irresponsibility StandardFalse LightUnauthorized Use of Likeness
References
11
Case No. ADJ122717 (FRE 0243087)
Regular
May 20, 2017

JOE MARTINEZ vs. CDC-CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant regarding a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision after a complete review of the record. Further proceedings may be ordered after this review.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersCDC-Corcoran State PrisonState Compensation Insurance FundADJ122717
References
0
Case No. ADJ122717
Regular
Dec 13, 2012

JOE MARTINEZ vs. CDC-CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here is a summary of the case in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claim by the CCPOA Benefits Trust Fund for over $42,000 paid to applicant Joe Martinez for living expenses. The Board found no statutory authority under Labor Code sections 4903 or 4903.1 to allow reimbursement for living expenses paid by a self-insured employee welfare benefit plan. Specifically, Labor Code section 4903.1(a)(3) only permits such liens for group disability policies under specific conditions not met here. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision disallowing the lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimLabor Code section 4903(c)Living expensesSelf-insured employee welfare benefit planStatutory authorizationReimbursementPermanent disabilityTemporary disabilityGroup disability policy
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01123
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Kohn v. County of Sullivan

Burt Kohn, an administrator for the Sullivan County Adult Care Center, was terminated following a disciplinary hearing based on charges of misconduct and incompetence. The charges stemmed from allegations that he suggested a subordinate share login credentials for a CDC database and asked staff to volunteer to test positive for COVID-19. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the determination by annulling two charges related to 'directing' password sharing, finding only a 'suggestion' was made. However, it sustained charges of misconduct and incompetence for the suggestion itself, noting potential penalties for non-compliance with rules, and upheld charges regarding his inappropriate COVID-19 remarks. The court ultimately affirmed the termination penalty, deeming it proportionate given his role during the pandemic.

Civil Service LawMisconduct ChargesIncompetence ChargesEmployment TerminationDisciplinary ProceedingsSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue ProcessPassword Sharing ProhibitionCOVID-19 ReportingNursing Home Administration
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1999

Mark v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Three female psychologists, Vivian M. Mark, Rebecca A. Meyer, and Carmen Maza, sued their former employer, The Mount Sinai Hospital's Communication Disorders Center (CDC), for breach of contract, constructive discharge, and various forms of employment discrimination including age, gender, and national origin. Plaintiffs alleged that their resignations were constructive discharges due to an unbearable work environment and that they faced disparate treatment and a hostile environment. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to prove constructive discharge or discrimination. Additionally, their claims of breach of contract, stemming from a dispute over signing Medicaid override forms, were also dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence. The court concluded that each of the plaintiffs' individual claims failed to meet the required threshold to survive summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the entire case.

Employment DiscriminationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationAge DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationBreach of ContractHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIADEA
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2001

Smith v. Potter

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to compel the United States Postal Service (USPS) to shut down and decontaminate the Morgan Processing and Distribution Center and to test all related postal facilities for anthrax due to contamination. The Court denied the application to shut down the Morgan Facility, finding that plaintiffs failed to meet the high standard for a mandatory injunction and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the defendant. The Court deferred to the scientific judgment of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which concluded that the anthrax contamination no longer posed an imminent and substantial public health risk. However, the Court directed the USPS to immediately test the James A. Farley Station for anthrax and to conduct extermination services for a rodent problem at the Morgan Facility. The Court also ruled that sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs' public nuisance claim seeking injunctive relief.

AnthraxBioterrorismPreliminary InjunctionRCRAPublic HealthCDCSovereign ImmunityPostal ServiceDecontaminationEnvironmental Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2008

Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. v. United States Agency for International Development

Plaintiffs, including Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International, sued federal agencies (USAID, HHS, CDC) challenging a provision of the Leadership Act requiring grant recipients to explicitly oppose prostitution, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights. The District Court had previously granted a preliminary injunction, finding the "Policy Requirement" unconstitutionally compelled speech and not narrowly tailored. After the case was remanded to consider new "organizational integrity" guidelines, the Court granted the motion to add Global Health Council and InterAction as plaintiffs, finding they had associational standing. The Court subsequently ruled that the new guidelines failed to remedy the constitutional defects, still compelling speech and imposing an unconstitutionally burdensome and non-narrowly tailored separation requirement for affiliate organizations. Consequently, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, barring the enforcement of the Policy Requirement against the plaintiffs, though DKT International was precluded from relief due to res judicata.

First AmendmentCompelled SpeechUnconstitutional ConditionsSpending ClausePreliminary InjunctionAssociational StandingHIV/AIDS FundingProstitution PolicyGovernment GuidelinesNarrow Tailoring
References
0
Showing 1-9 of 9 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