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
Nov 18, 1996

Marpe v. Dolmetsch

This case involves cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court in Rensselaer County. The plaintiff, a former employee of Capital Area Community Health Plan (CHP), alleged sexual misconduct and harassment by her therapist and supervisor, Paul Dolmetsch, also employed by CHP. The original complaint included claims against Dolmetsch for sexual harassment, negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, battery, and assault, and against CHP for sexual harassment/discrimination and vicarious liability. Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add a medical malpractice claim against Dolmetsch and a negligent supervision claim against CHP. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the medical malpractice claim related back to the original complaint and the negligent supervision claim lacked evidentiary merit.

Medical MalpracticeNegligent SupervisionSexual HarassmentAmended ComplaintTherapeutic RelationshipCross AppealAppellate ReviewEvidentiary ShowingDiscretion of CourtCPLR 203 [f]
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1999

Doe v. Community Health Plan—Kaiser Corp.

Plaintiff sued Ericka Klein, Community Health Plan—Kaiser Corporation (CHP), and Christen Adey for damages due to the alleged disclosure of confidential medical information from her patient file. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment against Adey but dismissed several claims against CHP and Klein. On appeal, the Court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment but reversed the grant of CHP’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, which alleged breach of confidentiality. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the remaining causes of action, including those for statutory breach of confidentiality and intentional infliction of emotional distress, clarifying the scope of direct corporate responsibility for employee actions breaching confidentiality.

ConfidentialityMedical InformationBreach of DutyNegligent DisclosureStatutory BreachIntentional RevelationInadequate PoliciesNegligent SupervisionEmotional DistressRespondeat Superior
References
10
Case No. ADJ8565275
Regular
May 16, 2013

JUAN CARILLO vs. CHP ENTERPRISES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Juan Carrillo. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought for final orders, not interlocutory procedural ones. An order is not considered final if it does not determine substantive rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, the Board found the petition improperly filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterlocutory orderFinal orderSubstantive rightsLiabilitiesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5900CEBMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Safeway Stores
References
3
Case No. SAC 0355949
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

DAVID DOLCINI vs. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC (PG&E)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant's injury was not caused by intoxication. The Board affirmed that the WCAB, not a physician, is the ultimate trier of fact and is not bound by the opinion of an agreed medical examiner. The WCJ's conclusion was based on the credible testimony of an investigating CHP officer who observed no signs of intoxication, and the applicant's own account of the accident, which indicated inattention rather than impairment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerTrier-of-factExpert OpinionCivil Law PrinciplesJudicial Council Civil Jury InstructionsBAJIEvidence CodeCHP Officer
References
12
Case No. ADJ8547650
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

RONALD HOGLUND vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND STATE EMPLOYEES

This case concerns Ronald Hoglund's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to prostate cancer, presumed industrial under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant, California Highway Patrol, sought reconsideration, arguing the injury date was incorrect, precluding the presumption, and disputing the permanent disability rating. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the employment period. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the award, modifying Finding of Fact No. 1 to reflect the applicant was employed by the CHP from June 1, 1970, through September 3, 2000.

Labor Code section 3212.1Petition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardWCJcumulative traumastatute of limitationspresumptioncarcinogenprimary siteFaust v. City of San Diego
References
8
Case No. ADJ10642863
Regular
Feb 25, 2020

LORI SOLA vs. TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board amended the WCJ's findings, rescinding the conclusions that the QME exhibited bias and failed to comply with time guidelines. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's disallowance of the defendant's CHP and personnel records as irrelevant to the sole issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board also affirmed the finding that neither treating physician's nor the QME's reports constituted substantial evidence, necessitating further development of the medical record, with parties to attempt to agree on an AME or the WCJ to appoint a physician. Commissioner Razo dissented, arguing the excluded exhibits should have been admitted for potential relevance to credibility and due process.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationFindings of FactQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianSubstantial EvidenceCausationAOE/COE
References
19
Case No. ADJ14723140
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

Phillip Howlett, et al. vs. California Highway Patrol, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Defendant California Highway Patrol sought reconsideration of a 'Findings and Award' which applied a presumption of compensability for cancer, resulting in the applicant's death. Defendant argued it had rebutted the presumption and that applicant's subsequent employer, University of California Police Department, was liable. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct technical errors in the original F&A, rescinding and reissuing it without substantive changes. The Board affirmed that the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption applied to CHP employment and was not rebutted. It further clarified that the presumption does not extend to the University of California Police Department, and the defendant provided no evidence of causation under traditional analysis for the subsequent employer.

ADJ14723140Phillip HowlettCalifornia Highway Patrollegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 3212.1cancerpresumption of compensability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Visco v. Community Health Plan

Barbara Vis-co sued her employer, Community Health Plan (CHP), and her supervisor, Dale Schecter, alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination following her termination in January 1995. Vis-co claimed her termination was due to her pregnancy and planned maternity leave, while defendants argued she was fired for excessive personal phone use. The court analyzed claims under Title VII, New York Human Rights Law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Vis-co failed to demonstrate that the defendants' stated non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination, and her IIED claim lacked sufficient legal basis.

pregnancy discriminationsex discriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights Lawsummary judgmentemployment terminationexcessive phone usepretextMcDonnell Douglas testqualified for position
References
26
Showing 1-8 of 8 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